[2026:RJ-JD:10159-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 802/2025

1. State Bank Of India, Through Its Chairman, Corporate Center State Bank Bhawan, Ist Floor Madame Cama Road Mumbai 400021.

2. The State Bank Of India, Through Its Chief Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Chief General Manager, State Bank Of India, Regional Office, Sri Ganganagar.

----Appellants Versus R.k. Sharma S/o Shri P.n. Sharma, Aged About 67 Years, C/o Sharma Ice Factory, 96, Industry Area Hanumangarh Junctionj Hanumangarh. (Presently Residing At Flat No. M-102, Palam Apartment, G.f. Bij Wasan, Delhi 110061).

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Chayan Bothra For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.P. Sharma, Mr. Abhimanyu Khatri HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

25/02/2026

1. This is an appeal assailing the judgment and order dated 12^th March 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent, was allowed with the following order:-

“9. This Court is of the opinion that the process followed by the bank in this matter is legally flawed. An employee who has duly completed the required service period cannot be left in a state of uncertainty while awaiting a decision on his voluntary retirement application from the competent authority. Such undue delay and lack of clarity are unjust and procedurally improper. Furthermore, the subsequent charges of misconduct brought against the petitioner under Regulation 50 of the Service Regulations, 1979, are also legally unsustainable and in the given circumstances, these charges should be quashed, as they appear to be an afterthought rather than a legitimate course of action.

10. A coordinate bench of this Court addressed similar issues in the case of Bhanwar Lal Nagga v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5997/2015) decided on 17.10.2022. In its judgment, the Court held that the decision to grant permission for voluntary retirement must be made by the appointing authority. Furthermore, it was clarified that voluntary retirement takes effect automatically upon the expiration of the notice period, provided the employee has duly complied with all procedural requirements. This ruling reinforces the principle that an employee cannot be left in uncertainty regarding their retirement status due to delays or inaction on the part of the appointing authority. 11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed in the following terms:-

a) The petitioner shall be considered to be retired from the respondent bank service by virtue of regulation 19 of the Service Regulations, 1979 with effect from

31.07.2002.

b) The impugned orders dated 29.07.2002, rejecting the petitioners application as well as order dated 05.12.2002 issuing the charge-sheet to the petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside.

c) The respondent is directed to provide all retirement and pensioner benefits to the petitioner as provided under Pension regulations of 1995 treating petitioner to have voluntarily retired with effect from 31.07.2002 in accordance with the Service Regulations, 1979.”

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank submits that the application of the writ petitioner for voluntary retirement has been considered and rejected by the Managing Director, who has powers under Regulation 75 of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations of 1979’) to reject the voluntary retirement application. The learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the Managing Director was not a competent authority to accept the voluntary retirement application and the Executive Committee could have approved the decision of the Managing Director, which has been done in the present case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent on caveat submits that Regulation 29(2) of the State Ban