Back
2015 Supreme(Megh) 91
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
T NANDAKUMAR SINGH, J.
Anjan Chakraborty - Petitioner
Vs.
Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No.216/2014
Decided On : 23.06.2015
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Government Employee Rights
Act Referred
MEGHALAYA FUNDAMENTAL RULES AND SUBSIDIARY RULES : R.57, R.57(c), R.57(k)(1)
SERVICE REGULATIONS : Reg.12(b)
Headnote
Voluntary Retirement - Meghalaya Fundamental Rules - FR 57 - The court discussed FR 57 of the Meghalaya Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, 1984, which pertains to compulsory retirement and voluntary retirement of government servants. The court highlighted the provisions of FR 57 and its interpretation in relation to the acceptance of voluntary retirement by the appropriate authority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Inspector of Police, applied for voluntary retirement after completing 35 years of service. The authority did not accept the application for a considerable period, leading the petitioner to approach the court for direction. The respondents cited pending inquiries and issued a notice for resuming duty and providing medical certificates. Subsequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authority's actions, including the directive to furnish medical certificates and the suspension order, occurred long after the expiry of the statutory 3-month notice period for voluntary retirement. The court referred to legal precedents to establish that if a statute provides for the approval of the higher authority, the order cannot be given effect unless approved.
Issues: The issues revolved around the acceptance of voluntary retirement under FR 57 of the Meghalaya Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, 1984, and the legality of the actions taken by the authority after the expiry of the statutory notice period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Meghalaya FR and SR, 1984 does not contemplate the power of non-acceptance of the application/notice for voluntary retirement after completing the statutory 3-month notice period. Therefore, the petitioner's notice for voluntary retirement should have been deemed accepted after completing the statutory period. The court quashed the suspension order and directed the respondents to accept the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the suspension order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to accept the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement after completing the statutory period of 3 months.
Advocate Appeared:
For the petitioner: Mr. B.K. Deb Roy, Mr. SD Upadhaya, Mr. S Deka, Advs.
For the respondents: Mr. ND Chullai, Sr. GA, Mr. S Sen Gupta, GA
Heard Mr. B.K. Deb Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. ND Chullai, learned Sr. GA assisted by Mr. S Sen Gupta, learned GA appearing for the respondents.
2. The core question calls for decision in the present writ petition is as to whether the question of non-acceptance or acceptance of voluntary retirement of the petitioner after completing the statutory notice of 3 (three) months for voluntary retirement by the authority arises or not? As, this question is to be answered by referring to the FR 57 of the Meghalaya Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, 1984. It would be more profitable to quote FR 57 hereunder:-
“CHAPTER IX
Compulsory Retirement
F.R. 57 (a) – The date of compulsory retirement of a government servant is the date on which he attains the age of 58 years. He may be retained in service after this age with the sanction of the State Government on public grounds which must be recorded in writing, and proposals for the retention of a government servant in service after this age should not be made except in very special circumstances.
(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the appropriate authority may if he is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, retire a Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months, in writing or three month’s pay and allowances in lieu of such notice, after he has attained fifty years of age or has completed 25 years of service, whichever is earlier.
(c) Any Government servant may by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority retire from service after he has attained the age of fifty years or has completed 25 years of service, whichever is earlier.
Administrative Instruction – When a government servant is required to retire, revert or cease to be on leave on attaining specified age, the day on which he attains that age is reckoned as non-working day, and the government servant must retire, revert or cease to be on leave as the case may be with effect from and including that day. This rule applies to all government servants.”
3. The concise fact of the case, sufficient for deciding the above core question, calls for decision in this writ petition is noted. The petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in the Meghalaya Police in the year 1978 and gradually promoted to the post of Inspector of Police (CID), HQ, Meghalaya. The petitioner, after completing of 35 years of service with the best of his ability and satisfaction of the concerned authority, the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement by giving 3 (three) months notice under FR 57 (c) of the Meghalaya Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, 1984 (for short ‘Meghalaya FR and SR, 1984’). It is categorically pleaded in the present writ petition that under FR 57 (c) of the Meghalaya FR and SR, 1984, the competent authority is under obligation to accept the voluntary retirement after completing 3 (three) months’ notice. The said application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement dated 01.11.2013 (Annexure I to the writ petition) is quoted hereunder:-
“To,
The Spl. Superintendent of Police,
CID, Meghalaya, Shillong.
(Through Proper Channel)
Sub: Prayer for voluntary retirement from Service.
Sir,
With utmost respect and sincerer request, I have the honour to state the following.
That, I was enlisted in Meghalaya Police in the year 1978 as Constable and had completed 35 years of service. During my service career, I have performed my duty to the best of my ability and satisfaction of my superior.
That, my family are settled in Kolkata and at present I am staying alone at Shillong. It may be mentioned that I am not in good health and had been plague with sickness since the past few years. That, I am finding it difficult especially on the financial aspect as I have to look after the expenses both for my family members at Kolkata and also for myself at Shillong paying for house rent and other expenses in both the places.
T
