State Government has the authority to accept VRS applications under AIS rules, and withdrawal by DOPT post-acceptance is invalid.

ORDER

The applicant is an officer of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) 1992 Batch, Maharashtra Cadre. He was on a foreign assignment to the United Nations - FAO between 1.12.2016 and 31.12.2019. Initially the assignment was for a period of two years and was extended from time to time until 31.12.2019. During the interregnum, the applicant applied for VRS (Voluntary Retirement Scheme) on 23.12.2019 under Rule 16(2) of the All India services (AIS) (Death Cum Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. He sought waiver of the three months notice period as per Rule 16(2) of AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958. The VRS application was accepted by the competent authority, that is, the State Government of Maharashtra on 30.12.2019 and from the very next day, that is, 31.12.2019 the applicant stood relieved. On 01.01.2020, the Government of Maharashtra sought relevant papers from the applicant to process his retiral dues (Page 106). The applicant submitted the desired documents immediately between 1-2/01/2020. Later, by an order dated 01.02.2020, upon the intervention of DoPT, the Government of Maharashtra withdrew the approval for the VRS of the applicant (Page 51). Nevertheless, since the applicant preceded on retirement after 01.01.2020 itself and his retiral dues have not been released, the applicant has filed the present O.A. seeking the following relief(s):-

“(i) To direct the respondents to release the pension and pensionary/retirement benefits of the applicant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 31.12.2019;

(ii) To direct the respondents to act upon the Government Resolution No. AEO- 1019/C.R.615/2019/X dated 30.12.2019;

If so, necessary,

(iii) To declare the Government Resolution NO. ABO-1019/C.R.615/2019 dated 01.02.2020 and Letter No. F.No. 14062/03/2020-/AIS-III dated 27.01.2020 as non-est and quash the same.

(iv) Any other relief which this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

(v) Grant all consequential benefits;

(vi) Award cost of the proceedings;

(vii) Pass any other order as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow cost in favour of the applicant.”

2. Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Fiza Chopra, Mr. Puneet Rathi and Mr. Parikshit Singh Bhati, makes the following submissions in support of the cause of the applicant:-

(i) The applicant being an IAS Officer of the Maharashtra Cadre, it was the Govt of Maharastra and not the DOP&T who is the competent authority to decide the VRS application. He was on the rolls of the Maharashtra Government and they had already accepted the VRS application of the applicant as well as the notice period waiver request. She draws attention to the RTI reply annexed at page 177 which confirms that the State Government has processed the case of the applicant as per the applicable rules.

(ii) The employee- employer relationship between the applicant and Government ceased to exist. Therefore, the DOPT exceeded its jurisdiction while imposing upon the state Government to withdraw the VRS application of the applicant after his retirement.

(iii) Once the State Government had accepted the VRS application of the applicant and the notice period was also waived off, the respondents are estopped from conducting a review of their own order.

(iv) The DOPT has given advice on 27.01.2020 wherein it is stated that the matter has been examined in terms of Para 14.3 and 14.4 of the Consolidated Instructions dated 20.06.1991 on foreign assignment of Indian Experts, issued by the them and Government of India decision dated 16.10.1980 under Rule 16(2A) of AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958 while in the present facts the provisions of Rule 16(2) would be applicable.

(v) She draws attention to the provisions ann