Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1511 (ALL)

MOHAN SINGH SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2002-10-11

ANJANI KUMAR

body2002
ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner, who was a constable in U. P. Police, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 24th November, 1993, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No. 2 and also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner in service and pay full salaries with all benefits. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that petitioner, according to his application dated 25. 6. 1386, a copy of which is being annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, applied for voluntary retirement on 25. 6. 1986, on the ground that he had joined the services of the department on 17. 10. 1965 and has completed 20 years of service. It is also stated in the said application, which as stated above is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, that the petitioner is physically weak and also suffering from illness and thus he is unable to serve the government any further. It was, therefore, prayed that petitioners voluntary retirement may be accepted and he may be granted pension. The said application filed by the petitioner was forwarded by the Circle Officer to whom the petitioner was serving, before the Senior superintendent of Police, The Senior Superintendent of Police accepted the voluntary resignation of the petitioner and thus the petitioner was relieved from duty. This order of relieving the petitioner from duty was passed on 29. 9. 1986, which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It appears that subsequent to it, petitioner filed application/ representation which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, stating therein that in fact the petittoner had given an application for grant of three days leave but that application was rejected and torn away by the Station Officer In-charge and the petitioner proceeded on casual leave w. e. f. 27. 6. 1986 for seven days. When the petitioner came back, he came to know that he has been voluntarily retired. He therefore, prayed that his order of voluntary retirement may be quashed. Petitioner further made representation to the Regional Deputy Inspector General of Police, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 6. 1986 for seven days. When the petitioner came back, he came to know that he has been voluntarily retired. He therefore, prayed that his order of voluntary retirement may be quashed. Petitioner further made representation to the Regional Deputy Inspector General of Police, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Thereafter, petitioner again made representation to the Governor of U. P. , copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The Senior superintendent of Police in pursuance of representation of the petitioner dated 29. 10. 1993 informed him by his communication letter dated 24. 11. 1993 that the allegations made by the petitioner have been enquired into by the Circle Officer, Kurawali, in which it was found that the petitioner has voluntarily given the application for voluntary retirement, which has been accepted by the police headquarters and necessary orders have already been issued. In these circumstances, the petitioner has now approached this Court, as stated above. ( 3 ) HEARD learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing the State. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the respondents were directed to decide the petitioners representation, which as already stated above, has been decided by the Senior Superintendent of Police and the said representation has been rejected. It is significant to note that the petitioner has nowhere denied that he has not filed any application seeking voluntary retirement or that he has not signed the said application Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The only argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of provision of Fundamental Rule 56 (1) (c), since the petitioner on the date when his voluntary retirement was accepted had not completed 25 years of service, the order accepting the voluntary retirement of the petitioner deserves to be quashed. The only argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of provision of Fundamental Rule 56 (1) (c), since the petitioner on the date when his voluntary retirement was accepted had not completed 25 years of service, the order accepting the voluntary retirement of the petitioner deserves to be quashed. Rule 56 (1) (c) is reproduced below : "56 (1) (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) and Clause (b), the appointing authority may, at any time, by notice to any Government servant (whether permanent or temporary), without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attains the age of fifty years or such Government servant may, by notice to the appointing authority, voluntarily retire at any time after attaining the age of [forty five years] or after he has completed qualifying service for twenty years. " ( 5 ) HE further contended that a bare perusal of Fundamental Rule 56 (1) (c) clearly demonstrates that the voluntary retirement can be opted by the Government servants on the ground that, either he has completed 25 years of service, or he has attained the age of 45 years, therefore, the order accepting the voluntary retirement of the petitioner is illegal and contrary to the aforesaid rules. This argument is fallacious. Even if it is accepted, the option to withdraw from the notice of voluntary retirement can be exercised by the petitioner till it was not accepted by the authority competent. From the materials on record, it is abundantly clear that the notice given by the petitioner has been accepted before petitioner wanted to withdraw the notice of voluntary retirement. A perusal of the aforesaid rule will demonstrate that the Government servant can opt, either when he has completed the age of 45 years, or he has completed his 20 years of service. From the statement made in the application, it is abundantly clear that on the date when the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement, he had already completed 20 years of service. In these circumstances, none of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners counsel is tenable and is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected. ( 6 ) THIS writ petition therefore, has no force and it is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. .