VRS Request Not Rejected in Time is Deemed Accepted, Subsequent Technical Resignation Invalid: Delhi HC

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling on service law, has declared that an employee's request for voluntary retirement (VRS) is deemed accepted if the employer fails to reject it before its effective date. The court held that a subsequent "technical resignation" submitted under compulsion cannot nullify the retirement that has already taken legal effect.

The division bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla allowed the writ petition filed by Rajesh Kumar, a former Pradhan Sahayak Engineer with the Indian Coast Guard, directing the authorities to treat him as voluntarily retired and grant him all consequential pensionary benefits under Rule 48(A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Case Background

The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar, after serving over 22 years in the Indian Coast Guard, was recommended by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for the post of Senior Scientific Officer (SSO-II) in the Directorate General of Aeronautical Quality Assurance (DGAQA).

On June 22, 2017, he submitted an application for voluntary retirement. Crucially, his application stipulated that the retirement would take effect from either the date of his appointment in DGAQA or within three months of his request's acceptance, whichever was earlier.

The Coast Guard authorities, however, did not reject his application. Instead, after a series of communications, they advised him on November 24, 2017, to submit a 'technical resignation' along with his DGAQA appointment offer. The petitioner was formally appointed as SSO-II on January 18, 2018. His Commandant informed the concerned department (BUVIK) of this appointment on February 1, 2018. It was only after this, on February 8, 2018, that the respondents insisted he either submit a technical resignation or remain in the Coast Guard. Under compulsion, he submitted the resignation on February 15, 2018.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Raj Singh Phogat, argued that the failure to reject the VRS application resulted in a deemed acceptance. He relied on a Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum and the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Haryana v. S.K. Singhal , which established that a VRS application takes effect automatically after the notice period expires unless it is explicitly rejected.

The respondents' actions were depicted as compelling the petitioner to switch from a voluntary retirement, which preserves pension benefits, to a technical resignation, which could jeopardize them.

Court’s Legal Reasoning

The High Court meticulously analyzed the timeline and the legal principles involved. The judges noted that the petitioner's voluntary retirement became effective, at the very latest, on February 1, 2018, the date his new appointment was communicated to the respondents.

The judgment highlighted a critical point: > "Till 1 February 2018, there was no rejection, by the respondents of the petitioner’s request for voluntary retirement. Applying that principle in S.K. Singhal, therefore, the petitioner stood voluntarily retired from service on 1 February 2018."

The Court distinguished the present case from S.K. Singhal on a minor point regarding the applicable rule but affirmed the core principle of deemed acceptance. The bench unequivocally stated that subsequent actions could not reverse a retirement that had already legally materialized.

> "The subsequent communications from the respondents to the petitioner to take technical resignation and the petitioner’s compliance therewith, which, according to Mr. Raj Singh, was under compulsion, cannot undo the effect of the voluntary retirement of the petitioner which had taken effect on 1 February 2018 at the very latest," the court observed.

Final Decision and Implications

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition, declaring that Rajesh Kumar shall be treated as having voluntarily retired from the Indian Coast Guard effective February 1, 2018.

The court has directed the respondents to compute and release all consequential pensionary benefits to the petitioner within three months. Any delay beyond this period will attract an interest rate of 12% per annum. This judgment reinforces the legal position that administrative inaction or delay cannot be used to an employee's detriment when they seek to exercise their right to voluntary retirement under the rules.