Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J., HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
Union of India & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Dr. Shiv Poojan R. Singh & Ors. - Respondents
Writ-A No. 68817 of 2015
Decided On : 16-07-2024
VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT - CCS (PENSION) RULES, 1972 - Rule 48, Rule 48A - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 48 and Rule 48A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, emphasizing that Rule 48 grants a government servant the right to voluntarily retire after 30 years of service, provided they are not under suspension. The court interpreted that the employer's discretion to accept or reject the retirement request is limited, particularly when the employee has met the qualifying conditions. The court concluded that the original applicant was entitled to retirement benefits as he had completed the requisite service and was not under suspension, thus affirming the Tribunal's decision.
Fact of the Case:
Dr. Shiv Poojan R. Singh, a government servant, applied for voluntary retirement after completing 30 years of service. His application was initially acknowledged but later rejected by the authorities, citing pending disciplinary proceedings. The Central Administrative Tribunal ruled in favor of Singh, deeming him retired and entitled to benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal's decision was justified as Singh had completed the required service and was not under suspension at the time of his retirement application. The rejection of his application was deemed improper as the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after his effective retirement date.
Issues: Whether the original applicant had a right to voluntarily retire under Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and whether the employer's rejection of his application was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Rule 48 provides a clear right to voluntarily retire after 30 years of service, and the employer's discretion to refuse such a request is limited to cases where the employee is under suspension. Since the original applicant was not under suspension and had completed the requisite service, his retirement was deemed effective.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's order that Dr. Shiv Poojan R. Singh be treated as having voluntarily retired and entitled to all consequential benefits.
JUDGMENT :
1. Impugned in the present proceedings at the instance of Union of India through its Secretary/Director General, Department of Posts India, Dak Bhawan Sansad Marg, New Delhi (In short “writ petitioner”) is the order dated 4.8.2015 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (In short “Tribunal”) whereby the Original Application No.762 of 201 preferred by Dr. Shiv Poojan R. Singh (In short original applicant) was allowed, the orders dated 30.3.2014 and 6.5.2014 of the writ petitioners was set aside with a direction to the writ petitioners herein to treat original applicant to have deemed to be voluntarily retired w.e.f. 30.9.2023 while extending all the consequential benefits arising out of voluntarily retirement in accordance with rules within a period of three months.
2. A joint statement has been made by the counsel for the rival parties that the writ petition be decided at the admission stage as they do not propose to file further affidavits. With the consent of the parties, the Court is proceeding to decide the writ petition at the admission stage.
3. The case projected by the original applicant before the Tribunal was that he was initially inducted in the postal department on 13.1.1981 and thereafter accorded promotion as Superintendent of Post Office, Basti. In terms of Rule 48 CCS (Pension Rules), 1972, (In short Rules, 1972) the original applicant sought voluntarily retirement after satisfactorily completing 30 years of service by virtue of an application dated 26.6.2013 seeking to retire him w.e.f. 30.9.2013 (AN).
4. It is also the case of the original applicant that the said application seeking voluntarily retirement was forwarded by the Assistant Director (Staff) on behalf of Post Master General, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur to Assistant Post Master General in the office of Chief Post Master General, Lucknow.
5. A communication is stated to have been issued by the A.D.P.S. on behalf of the Post Master General, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur to the original applicant on 5.7.2023 acknowledging receipt of the request letter dated 26.6.2023. On 19.7.2023 a communication came to be issued by A.D.P.S. for the Post Master General, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur addressed to A.P.M.G. (Staff) in the office of the Chief Post Master General, Uttar Pradesh Circle, Lucknow recommending the case for voluntarily retirement in the wake of the fact that the original applicant was neither under suspension nor any disciplinary/criminal proceedings was pending against him, less to say about punishment/penalty.
6. As per the pleadings an order is stated to have been passed on 31.7.2013 on behalf of Post Master General, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur whereby the original applicant, who was posted as Superintendent of Post Office, Basti was transferred as A.D.P.S. Regional Office, Gorakhpur.
7. The original applicant claims to have proceeded on medical leave due to ill health w.e.f. 1.8.2013. Subsequently on 30.9.2013 the original applicant submitted an informal charge report mentioning therein that w.e.f. 30.9.2013 he as per his request for voluntarily retirement stood voluntarily retired. Since the retiral dues were not paid to the original applicant so he claims to have preferred a request letter on 5.10.2013 followed on 21.10.2013 and 7.11.2013. Since the retiral benefits were not extended to the original applicant so he preferred Original Application No.O.A./330/161 of 2014 (Shiv Poojan R. Singh vs. Union of India and others) which came to be disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 6.2.2014 requiring the writ petitioners herein to decide the representation of the original applicant dated 7.11.2013 within a period of three months.
8. According to the original applicant an order is stated to have been passed on 31.3.2014 by the Post Master General, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur rejecting the application of the original applicant for voluntarily retirement on the ground that already a decision has been taken on 20.9.2
A government servant has an absolute right to voluntarily retire after completing 30 years of service under Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, provided they are not under suspension, and the e....
The discretion to accept or reject voluntary retirement applications must be exercised judiciously, considering the employee's circumstances and not arbitrarily.
Voluntary retirement requires explicit acceptance from the appointing authority and cannot be deemed effective solely based on a lack of response.
Point of law: if the application for voluntary retirement would have been accepted by the appointing authority on the subsequent representation moved by the petitioner, he would have retired from ser....
The right to voluntary retirement is substantive and governed by the rules in effect at the time of application, not amendments enacted thereafter.
The discretion to seek voluntary retirement lies with the government servant, and the request for voluntary retirement does not require acceptance by the employer. The court emphasized the deemed acc....
An employee cannot withdraw a request for voluntary retirement once it has been accepted and becomes effective, as per the Pension Rules.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
