The rejection of voluntary retirement should be based on the grounds mentioned in Rule 56(3)(e) and categorization of a category as a scarce category should be done based on objective criteria.

1. Heard both sides.

2. The issue lies in a very narrow compass.

3. The petitioner is a Senior Assistant Surgeon in General Medicine in the Government Hospital, Oddanchathiram, Dindigul District. He joined as Assistant Surgeon in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service on 11.12.1991. He applied for voluntary retirement in his letter dated 28.12.2011, which was received by the office of the first respondent on 17.04.2012. The three months notice period expires on 16.07.2012. But his request was rejected by the second respondent by the order dated 04.07.2012 based on the direction issued by the first respondent.

4. The rejection is solely based on G.O.(Ms.)No.408, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 15.12.2009 on the ground that General Medicine is one of the rare specialties, as per that G.O.. Since the petitioner belongs to rare specialty category, as per the G.O.(Ms.)No.408, his request for voluntary retirement was rejected.

5. Therefore, the issue that arose for consideration is as to whether the voluntary retirement of a Doctor belongs to a rare specialty could be declined based on G.O.(Ms.)No.408, dated 15.12.2009 ?

6. The fundamental Rules 56(3) deals with voluntary retirement. As per Rule 56(3)(a) of the Fundamental Rules, a Government servant who has attained the age of fifty-years or who has completed twenty years of qualifying service may retire from service by giving notice of not less than three months in writing direct to the appointing authority with a copy marked to the immediate superior officer for information. Hence, a Government servant has a right to seek voluntary retirement under Clause (3)(a) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules.

7. The period of three months notice referred to in Clause (3)(a) of Fundamental Rule 56, shall be reckoned from the date of receipt of notice by the appointing authority, as per Rule 56(3)(b) of the Fundamental Rules.

8. As per Rule 56(3)(f), the appointing authority shall issue orders before the date of expiry of notice either accepting the voluntary retirement or not accepting the same. If no order is passed, Rule 56(3)(f) presumes that the Government servant shall be deemed to have been retired voluntarily from service at the end of the period of notice.

9. In this case, before the expiry of three months notice period, the impugned order was passed rejecting the request of the petitioner. At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of Rule 56(3)(e). Fundamental Rule 56(3)(e) mandates that the notice for voluntary retirement given by a Government servant shall be accepted by the appointing authority subject to certain conditions. Five conditions are given in Rule 56(3)(e) and if the Government servant satisfies those conditions, there is no option for the Government, but to accept the voluntary retirement.

10. It is, thus, relevant to extract Rule 56(3)(e) of the Rules as hereunder:

“56. (3) (e). notice of voluntary retirement given by a Government servant shall be accepted by the appointing authority, subject to the following conditions being satisfied namely :-

(i) that no disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending against the Government servant concerned for the imposition of a major penalty;

(ii) that no prosecution is contemplated or pending in a Court of Law against the Government servant concerned;

(iii) that a report from the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption has been obtained to the effect that no enquiry is contemplated or pending against the Government servant concerned ;

(iv) that no dues which cannot be recovered from his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity are pending to be recovered from the Government servant concerned ; and

(v) that there is no contractual obligation to serve the Government during the period in which the Government servant concerned seeks to retire voluntarily.”

11. In my view, as per Rule 56(3)(e) of the Fundamental Rules, the Government should have accepted the request of voluntary retirement of the petitioner. In fact