Under FR 56(k)(1), voluntary retirement notice cannot be withheld except for suspension, pending disciplinary/judicial proceedings on grave misconduct; organizational needs or pending work not valid grounds. (28 words)

ORDER 

The applicant has filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate order or direction to quash the impugned orders bearing No.CSB-17(21)/94-ES.I (Vol.II) and No.CSB/MS/PA/2023-24 both dated 04.03.2024 issued by Respondent No.2 vide Annexure A7 and A8 respectively as the same is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide, without application of mind and violative of not only FR 56 (k)(c) but also violative of Articles14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(ii) Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2^nd Respondent to permit the Applicant to retire from service with effect from 04.03.2024 forthwith and to grant all consequential benefits.

(iii) Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of this petition, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that he entered service of the second Respondent on 05.01.1994 as a Computer Programmer and he was given posting at CSR&TI, Pampore, Jammu and Kashmir. He was transferred to CSR&TI, Berhampore, West Bengal vide order dated 16.05.1994 and thereafter to CSR&TI, Bengaluru on 09.06.1997. He was promoted to the cadre of Assistant Director on 04.10.2004 and thereafter as Deputy Director on 28.01.2008, The date of birth of the applicant is 30.07.1968. The applicant took a decision to voluntarily retire from service of the second Respondent owing to compelling situation in his family. Accordingly, he submitted a representation dated 09.11.2023 expressing his intention to voluntarily retire from service with effect from 04.03.2024 and thereby requested the second Respondent to relieve him from service on 04.03.2024. Since no response was received, the applicant submitted another representation dated 06.02.2024 to the second Respondent requesting to accept his request dated 09.11.2023. The second Respondent vide letter dated 12.02.2024 informed the applicant that the competent authority has entrusted some work regarding e-Office, e-HRMS etc., and requested him to submit the report. Accordingly, the applicant submitted his report to second Respondent on 13.02.2024. However, the second Respondent vide letter dated 20.02.2024 requested the applicant to submit weekly review of the entrusted work regarding e-Office, e-HRMS etc., and to appraise the same. The applicant submitted a note dated 22.02.2024 in compliance of the request made in the intimation letter dated 20.02.2024. It is the grievance of the applicant that the second Respondent did not either reject the request of the applicant for his voluntary retirement from service or accepted the same, but on the date of which the applicant intended to voluntarily retire from service i.e., on 04.03.2024, issued an office order dated 04.03.2024 inter alia stating that the request of his voluntary retirement will be examined only after completion of the work entrusted to him. Further the applicant has been informed that the committee has been constituted to work out a proper methodology for development of Prayas Portal and the applicant is the Member Convenor of the said committee. Hence this OA.

3. Learned Counsel Shri Vishwanath Bhat representing the applicant submitted that the impugned orders at Annexure A7 and A8 both dated 04.03.2