Order: In the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner Rabinder Singh Bhalla, Commander, P.V. Samudra, has challenged the communication dated May 18, 1992, which is Annexure "Y" to this petition, whereby the Harbour Master (River) had communicated that the application for voluntary retirement of the petitioner has been considered by the Chairman, but in the interest of public service the said application of voluntary retirement of the petitioner could not be accepted. 2. The writ petition was moved before Susanta Chatterjee, J., of this Court on May 26, 1992 and on May 28, 1922 by an ad-interim order the Calcutta Port Trust Authorities were restrained from taking any disciplinary action against the petitioner. Ultimately, the writ petition was released by His Lordship by order dated August 19, 1992 and appeared before me for hearing. 3. The application for vacation of the interim order filed on behalf of the respondents was disposed of by this Court on December 3, 1992, by directing early hearing of the main writ petition together with the said application for vacating the interim order. 4. The writ petition accordingly, was taken up for hearing on December 15, 1992 and was heard-in-part and the hearing was concluded on January 14, 1993 and the hearing was concluded and Judgement was reserved. 5. Mr. P. K. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner placed the following facts from the writ petition. 6. The petitioner was initially appointed under the respondent Port Trust as Leadsman, on probation for five years and thereafter he was confirmed in his service on April 23, 1960. 7. The relevant particulars of the petitioner's service under the respondents are as follows:- (a) Date of appointment: 23rd April 1960 (b) Date from which regularly appointed to Class-I Post: 23rd April, 1960 (Gradation List) (c) Initial Post and designation and scale of pay : Leadsman Rs. 275/300/325/800-40-880/920-40-960/1150-40-1350-1600/1700-50-1700. (d) Promotion to the post of Pilot in the year 1964. (e) Petitioner was given further promotions because of his meritorious service and in the year 1900 he was promoted to the post of Commander and to be incharge of Port Trust Vessel-P. V. "Samudra" (f) Petitioner's present Pay-Scale is Rs. 5150-175-6900 and his total emoluments (Gross Earning per month) today come to Rs. 11000/-(Approx.). 8. (e) Petitioner was given further promotions because of his meritorious service and in the year 1900 he was promoted to the post of Commander and to be incharge of Port Trust Vessel-P. V. "Samudra" (f) Petitioner's present Pay-Scale is Rs. 5150-175-6900 and his total emoluments (Gross Earning per month) today come to Rs. 11000/-(Approx.). 8. On the date of moving of the writ petition the petitioner is about 53 years and he has completed more than 30 years' service, under the respondent Trustees. As the petitioner was keeping very bad health and the petitioner's duty as Commander of Port Trust Vessel-P. V. Samudra, is extremely hazardous and troublesome and by reason of very nature of his duty he is required to stay on Board the vessel for a long stretch of time, which extend to 2 to 3 weeks, when the petitioner is required to stay at Sand-heads and is also subjected to inclement weather at Sand-heads causing fluctuation of blood pressure vomiting loss of sleep and loss of appetite and dizziness. The petitioner was sent out to Sand-heads as Commander of the Pilot Vessel "Samudra" in the month of February 1992 and he was required to stay at Sand-heads on Board Pilot Vessel "Samudra" for about two weeks. During this long period of stay on the Vessel P. V. Samudra at Sandheads, the petitioner became seriously ill and his usual symptoms of dizziness, fluctuation of blood pressure, restlessness loss of sleep and tension increased exorbitantly so much that the petitioner was confined to bed, and though he required urgent medical attention, no medical assistance was available. The petitioner was not able to eat and his bowels were not cleared regularly and properly. The frequency of his passing urine also increased considerably. He sent out messengers from Sandheads to the respondent authority at Calcutta for being relieved, but no relief was made available and the petitioner could come to Calcutta from the Sandheads only after the stipulated period of stay at Sandheads. Immediately upon reaching Calcutta on February 28, 1992, the petitioner applied for leave and he was unable to report for duty on medical grounds. 9. Immediately upon reaching Calcutta on February 28, 1992, the petitioner applied for leave and he was unable to report for duty on medical grounds. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner consulted his family physician, as well as specialists and he was advised by all concerned that he was no longer fit for serving the Port Trust Authorities, as Commander of their Pilot Vessel and he was not fit to perform duty as a Pilot and he was advised to apply for voluntary retirement, according to rules of the Calcutta Port Trust. 10. Relevant medical certificates and expert reports have been annexed to this petition as Annexure II, III, IV, V, IX, IX-A, IX-B, IX-C, X, XI, XII, XII-A, XII-B, XII-C and XII-D, which formed the part of the writ petition. 11. By a letter dated February 17, 1992 the petitioner had applied before the Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust and given notice for voluntary retirement which is set out at page 54 of the writ petition, which runs as follows: "It is requested that I may please be allowed to retire voluntarily with effect from June 1, 1992, after completion of more than 32 years of service with the Calcutta Port Trust. This may please be treated as the notice of retirement required to be given under C.P.T. Employees (Pension) Regulations 1988, under Regulation 28. 2. My date of birth is July 15, 1939 and I have been in continuous service with the Calcutta Port Trust since April 23, 1960. Full retirement benefits and Gratuity, as admissible under the rules may therefore kindly be sanctioned. 3. On retirement: (i) the balance of Earned Leave to my credit may kindly be allowed to be encashed. (ii) My own subscription to the Contributory Provident Fund and Voluntary Provident Fund Accounts may kindly be allowed to be withdrawn. My Provident Fund Account No. is CP-274. (iii) All other dues/monies payable to me may please be settled. 4. Commutation of one-third of the admissible pension may also kindly be sanctioned, to enable me finance acquisition of a dwelling unit. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- Robinder Singh Bhalla Commander, P. V. 'Samudra' 12. The Chairman of the Calcutta Port Trust was not inclined to accept the application for voluntary retirement of the petitioner, which was communicated by the communication dated May 18, 1992, issued by the Harbour Master (River), as stated above. 13. Mr. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- Robinder Singh Bhalla Commander, P. V. 'Samudra' 12. The Chairman of the Calcutta Port Trust was not inclined to accept the application for voluntary retirement of the petitioner, which was communicated by the communication dated May 18, 1992, issued by the Harbour Master (River), as stated above. 13. Mr. P. K. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner having placed the aforesaid facts from the writ petition, has referred to Regulation 28 of the Calcutta Port Trust Employees' Service Regulations, which is as follows: "28. Retirement on completion of 30 years' qualifying service- (1) At any time after an employee has completed thirty years' qualifying service. (a) he may retire from service or (b) he may be required by the appointing authority to retire in the Board's interest and in the case of such retirement the employee shall be entitled to a retiring pension. Provided that- (a) an employee shall give a notice in writing to the appointing authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire; and (b) the appointing authority may also give a notice in writing to an employee at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire in the Board's interest or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice. Provided further that where the employee giving, notice under Clause (a) of the proceeding proviso to under suspension, it shall be open to the appointing authority to withhold permission to such an employee to retire under this regulation." 14. Thus, according to Mr. Chatterjee the petitioner may retire from service, in terms of Regulation 28 (I) (a) of the said regulation, on completing thirty years of qualifying service. 15. In this connection, he has referred to the provisions of 56 (a) and 56 (c) of the Fundamental Rules, which runs as follows:- "F. R. 56 (a) The date of the compulsory retirement of a Government servant is the date on which he attains the age of 55 Years. He may be retained in service after this age with sanction of the State Government on public grounds which must be recorded in writing, and proposals for the retention of a Government servant in service after this age should not be made except in very special circumstances. He may be retained in service after this age with sanction of the State Government on public grounds which must be recorded in writing, and proposals for the retention of a Government servant in service after this age should not be made except in very special circumstances. F. R. 56 (c) Any Government servant may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority, retire from service after he has attained the age of fifty years or has completed 2G years of service, whichever is earlier." 16. In this connection, Mr. Chatterjee referred to a Judgment of The Division Bench of Delhi High Court, in the case of Union of India vs. Harendralal Bhattacharyya, reported in 1984 (1) Service Law Reporter, Page 1. 17. In paragraph 17 of the said Judgment, the Division Bench, referred to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court, in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Union of India; reported in A. I. R. 1969 S.C. p. 180, wherein Supreme Court observed as follows: "...... Where a public servant has invited by his letter of a resignation determination of his employment, his services normally stand terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority and in the absence of any law or rule governing the conditions of his service to the contrary, it will not be open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance, the public servant concerned has locus poententiate but not thereafter." 18. Further, referring to paragraph 19 of the said Judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Harendralal (supra), Mr. Chatterjee submits that the solution of the question posed, therefore, turns on its proper interpretation. 19. From the very words of the sub-rule (2) of Rule 28 of the aforesaid Regulations it is clear that it gives to a Government servant the right to retire 'by giving notice of not less than three months in writing' provided, he satisfied the conditions as stated. The sub-rule lays down no requirement that the notice must be accepted. On the contrary, it is implied by proviso (b) that except when a Government servant is under suspension, the appropriate authority has no power to 'withhold permission' to retire. The sub-rule lays down no requirement that the notice must be accepted. On the contrary, it is implied by proviso (b) that except when a Government servant is under suspension, the appropriate authority has no power to 'withhold permission' to retire. The irresistible conclusion is that the notice given under the sub-rule is effective proprio vigore and needs no acceptance. 20. Mr. Chatterjee thereafter also referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Chandra Sangma vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in A.I.R. 1978 S.C. p. 17. 21. In the said Judgment, in dealing with the provisions of 56 (c) of the Fundamental Rules, quoted above, Supreme Court observed, as follows: "F. R. 56 is one of the staturoty rules which binds the Government as well as the Government servant, The Condition of service which is envisaged in R. 56 (c) giving an option in absolute terms to a Government servant to voluntarily retire with three months' previous notice, after he reached 50 years of age or has completed 25 years of service, cannot therefore be equated with a contract of employment as envisaged in Expen. 2 to R. 119." 22. In paragraph 8 of the said Judgment Supreme Court further observed as follows: "While the Government reserves its right to compulsorily retire a Government servant, even against his wish, there is corresponding right of the Government servant under F.R. 56 (c) to voluntarily retire from service by giving the Government three months' notice in writing. There is no question of acceptance of the request for voluntary retirement by the Government when the Government servant exercises his right under F. R. 56 (c)." 23. After placing the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court and the provisions of the Fundamental Rules, Mr. Chatterjee submits that the Regulation 28(2) of the said Regulation is pari materia, to the provisions of Clause 56(c) of the Fundamental Rules. 24. In the next, Mr. After placing the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court and the provisions of the Fundamental Rules, Mr. Chatterjee submits that the Regulation 28(2) of the said Regulation is pari materia, to the provisions of Clause 56(c) of the Fundamental Rules. 24. In the next, Mr. Chatterjee submits that Regulation 29(A) of the aforesaid Service Regulation refers to retirement on completion of 20 years' qualifying service and in terms of Clause (2) of the said Regulation 29(A), the notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-regulation (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority, whereas there being no such clause in Regulation 28, the intention shown by expression voluntary retirement and if the conditions are fulfilled, it would be automatic and the respondent authorities cannot withhold the permission for voluntary retirement, in no circumstances. 25. Accordingly, Mr. Chatterjee submits that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities that is, the Calcutta Port Trust and its Chairman, to allow the petitioner to voluntarily retire and to grant retirement benefits, including payment of Gratuity, monthly pension and Provident Fund facilities, in accordance with law. 26. Mr. Sankar Prasad Mitra learned Advocate with Mr. S. K. Sinha, submits that the Regulation 28 cannot be equated with Rule 56(c) of the Fundamental Rules, as it cannot be an unilateral action, but a by1ateral action. 27. He further submitted that the petitioner although referred to voluntary retirement, as per the scheme, the petitioner has not disclosed before this Court, the entire scheme and in this connection he has referred to a communication of Ministry of Surface Transport, Labour Division, Government of India, addressed to Dr. A. C. Roy, Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust, dated August 29, 1991, wherefrom it appears that the Port Trust and Dock Labour Board will have the right not to grant voluntary retirement for reasons to be recorded in writing. 28. On being enquired by this Court as no reasons have been given, except the public interest, in the impugned communication, this Court is to adjudge as to whether the respondent Calcutta Port Trusts authorities are within their limits not to accept the voluntary retirement of the petitioner, on the alleged reasons, which was supplemented by affidavit. 29. Mr. 28. On being enquired by this Court as no reasons have been given, except the public interest, in the impugned communication, this Court is to adjudge as to whether the respondent Calcutta Port Trusts authorities are within their limits not to accept the voluntary retirement of the petitioner, on the alleged reasons, which was supplemented by affidavit. 29. Mr. Mitra, appearing for the respondents, thereafter referred to the statements of the affidavit, affirmed by Debobrata Sen Gupta, director, Marine Department, Calcutta Port Trust and in particular paragraph 7 of the said affidavit which runs as follows: "(a) I state that the petitioner's application dated 17th February 1992 seeking voluntary retirement was duly considered by the competent authority. (b) In this connection, it is relevant and pertinent to mention that when a ship is coming from Sea to Calcutta or going back from Calcutta to Sea, she has to travel more than 200 kilo meters through the river Hooghly and cross a number of bars and sharp bends. Since the crew of the ships do not have any knowledge of such bars, bends or other obstructions in the river, to avoid any accident pilotage service is compulsorily rendered by this Port to such ships both at the time of coming to Calcutta and also at the time of going back to Sea. Till such time a Pilot goes to the sandheads i.e., the meet point of the river and the sea, and takes over the Navitation charge of the ship, it cannot come through the river. (c) I further state that at present the total sanctioned strength of the pilots at this Port is 80 and as against the same, the available strength is 32 only and this is totally inadequate to copy with the Shipping needs. (d) As a result, the ships have to wait for a longer period at the Sandheads. (e) Under the circumstances, further reduction in the strength of pilots by granting voluntary retirement to the petitioner would aggravate the situation. (f) On the other hand, this Port is also not getting pilots for filling up the vacancies because they are more interested to join the Merchants Navy where they get higher emoluments. In the circumstances explained hereinabove the petitioner's application seeking voluntary retirement could not be acceded to 'in Public interest.” 30. Mr. (f) On the other hand, this Port is also not getting pilots for filling up the vacancies because they are more interested to join the Merchants Navy where they get higher emoluments. In the circumstances explained hereinabove the petitioner's application seeking voluntary retirement could not be acceded to 'in Public interest.” 30. Mr. Mitra further submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to avail the scheme for voluntary retirement as "an absolute right", but this is dependable upon circumstances. 31. Mr. Mitra lastly submits that the petitioner is entitled to resign and not to opt for voluntary retirement and in that event the petitioner will not be entitled to any pensionary benefit. 32. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions of both the parties, this Court has to decide as to whether the Regulation 28 is pari materia to the• provisions of Clause 56 (c) of the Fundamental Rules, as referred to in the case of Dinesh Chandra Sangma vs. State of Assam and anr. (supra). 33. This Court also will have to decide as to whether the option to retire voluntarily after completion of 30 years' of qualifying service, is an unilateral or it requires formal permission of the respondent authorities to accept the voluntary retirement. 34. I have gone through the provisions of Clause 56 (c) of the Fundamental Rules, as well as Regulation 28(2) of the said Service Regulation and the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Chandra Sangma vs. State of Assam (supra) and I am of the view that while the Government reserves its right to compulsorily retire a Government servant, even against his wish and there is a corresponding right of the Government1 servant, under Fundamental Rule 56 (c) to voluntarily retire from service by giving the Government 3 months' notice in writing. 35. Accordingly, in my view, in this case, Regulation 28(2) of the Regulation, being at par with Fundamental Rule Clause 56 (c), there is no question of acceptance of the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement by the Calcutta Port Trust. 36. 35. Accordingly, in my view, in this case, Regulation 28(2) of the Regulation, being at par with Fundamental Rule Clause 56 (c), there is no question of acceptance of the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement by the Calcutta Port Trust. 36. This Court further is of the view that the reasons given in paragraph 7 of the affidavit, affirmed by Debobrata Sen Gupta that the total strength of the pilots is 80 and out of the same only 32 is available, which is totally inadequate to cope with the shipping needs, the petitioner cannot be allowed to retire voluntary, cannot be considered to be "a reasonable" ground for refusing to grant formal permission for accepting voluntary retirement of the petitioner, specially in view of the fact that the petitioner's health is not permitting such hazardous work. 37. In this context, this Court is not also unmindful of the relevant regulations in the case of Fire Fighting Staffs and in the case of Railway Drivers and Fire Men, where such voluntary retirement, on the ground of ill health has been made permissible on the employees' own seeking. 38. This Court does not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Mitra that the respondents have got the right to refuse such prayer of voluntary retirement on any ground, whatsoever. By Regulation 28 of the said Service Regulation, the writ petitioner is only obliged to intimate his intention and the respondent Port Trust Authorities cannot but accept the voluntary retirement, particularly when the petitioner has completed 30 years of qualifying service and the petitioner has given 3 months' notice beforehand from the date from which he wanted to retire, and since he fulfilled all preconditions. 39, On the basis of proper interpretation and construction of Rule 29(A) with Rule 28, since in Rule 29(A) there is specific provision fur acceptance of voluntary retirement "on completion of 20 years of qualifying service" in terms of Regulation 29 (A) (2) it can be construed by this Court that retirement on completion of 30 years of qualifying service, subject to fulfilment of the conditions, is an absolute right of the petitioner and it is an unilateral action and the respondents are not entitled to stand in the way, by not accepting the voluntary retirement, as it was done• in the facts of the present case. 40. 40. In the result, the writ petition is entitled to succeed. 41. Let a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to accept the voluntary retirement, which was submitted by the petitioner through letter dated February 17, 1992, forthwith and in accordance with Regulation 28(2) of the Calcutta Port Trust Employees' Service Regulations. 42. Let a Writ or appropriate direction be issued upon the Calcutta Port Trust authorities to finalise the other retirement benefits of the petitioner, including the Gratuity, Provident Fund, monthly pension, etc., in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of, as above. No separate order need be passed upon the application for vacating the interim order. All the parties to act on a xerox signed copy of the operative part of the Judgment and Order on the usual undertaking. Petition allowed.