A request for voluntary retirement under Fundamental Rule 56(k)(1) can only be withheld if the government servant is under suspension, facing a charge sheet, or involved in judicial proceedings for grave misconduct, and cannot be rejected on grounds of staff shortages or internal circulars.

O R D E R (ORAL)

PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other order quashing the impugned office order vide letter No. CSB-18A(1)/90-ES.I/E 76833 dated 13.10.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent which has been produced as Annexure-A5, as the said order is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, capricious, irrational and violate of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from being contrary to the principles of rules of natural justice.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the request of the applicant for voluntary retirement by the end of January 2026 after considering three months’ notice period.

(iii) Pass any such other orders or issue such other directions as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts & circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that he joined Central Silk Board (CSB) service on appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk on 18.12.1989. Subsequently he has been promoted during 2001 as Upper Division Clerk and presently working as Assistant Superintendent (Admn) in Level-7 of the pay matrix from 2016. He has served CSB for more than 36 years. The applicant has been transferred to Bangalore vide office order dated 23.05.2025. It is the contention of the applicant that he is an unmarried bachelor having adopted son of 11 years, and aged mother of about 85 years old, who is bed ridden and a chronic diabetic patient. The applicant is lone earning member of the family and shouldering entire responsibility of the family. He is native of Dharmavaram, Andhra Pradesh. The applicant is not in a position to continue his official duties at Bangalore leaving his mother and son at his native, therefore, requested to modify his transfer to Regional Silk Technological Research Station (RSTRS), Dharmavaram vide letter dated 02.06.2025, which has not been acceded by the competent authority. The applicant claims that he has submitted an application 28.08.2025 to the Appointing Authority seeking voluntary retirement from service by the end of November, 2025 with required notice period on the ground of personal reasons and social obligations, as required under Rules. The respondent Board has rejected the request of the applicant for voluntary retirement vide letter dated 13.10.2025 on the grounds of shortage of staff in administrative cadres. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

Learned counsel Shri Sampangi Ramaiah representing the applicant submitted that the impugned order at Annexure A5 dated 13.10.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent is unjust, illegal and in utter violation of the provisions of Fundamental Rules 56 (k) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents can withhold permission sought by the applicant to retire voluntarily only in the event of any circumstances under sub-Rule (c) of FR 56 (k) (l) is available. No such circumstances exist in the present case. The applicant is entitled and eligible to seek voluntary retirement from service as prescribed under Clause (k) of the Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules . There exists no legal grounds for the respondents to issue the impugned order. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the orders passed by this Tribunal in the case of R. Nanda Kumar vs. Union of India , Ministry of Textiles, New Delhi and another in OA No. 200/2024 (DD: 03.10.2024), N. Bharathi Kaliammal vs. The Joint Secretary (Silk), Ministry of Textiles, New Delhi and another in OA No. 403/2024 (DD: 23.01.2025) and Smt. V.T. Darly vs. the Joint Secretary (Silk), Ministry of Textiles, New Delhi and another in OA No. 673/2024 (DD: 06.06.2025).

Learned counsel Shri Gajendra Vasu representing the respondents argued that the applicant submitted notice dated 28.08.2025