JUDGMENT 1. - Writ petitioner was an employee in the subordinate Court serving as LDC and has assailed order dated 17/04/2007 (Ann.17) whereby respondent-2 accepted his request seeking voluntary retirement allegedly tendered on 16/04/2007, after condoning period of three month's notice & invoking R.50 of Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 ("Pension Rules"). 2. Pendente writ petition, since employee (petitioner) died on 14/12/2010, his legal representatives were brought on record. It has been averred that the deceased employee was initially appointed as LDC vide order dated 04/01/1991 on compassionate ground since his father who was Additional District & Sessions Judge died while in service on 10/06/1969. It has come on record that the deceased was suffering from chronic disease of Schizo-phrenia - due to which, he remained on leave as well and once notice U/r 17 of Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 ("CCA Rules") was also served upon him and obviously because of chronic disease with which he was suffering, he could not participate in disciplinary inquiry initiated against him and on the charges being proved, a penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect was inflicted vide order dated 29/08/2006(Ann.9). 3. However, another charge sheet dated 16/09/2006 (Ann.10) was served upon him U/r 16 of CCA Rules for alleged absence from duty without sanction of leave from 26/07/2006 to 31/07/2006 & from 01/08/2006 onwards. After inquiry, petitioner was found guilty of the charges imputed, with which disciplinary authority concurred, and finally he was inflicted with penalty of two grade increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 12/04/2007 (Ann.15) which was conveyed vide forwarding letter dated 17/04/2007; but at the same time, simultaneously he was served with another order dated 17/04/2007 (Ann.17) conveying that his application dated 16/04/2007 seeking voluntary retirement has been accepted and he stood voluntarily retired from service with immediate effect in exercise of powers U/r 50 of Pension Rules, 1996 after having condoned the period of three months' notice. 4. 4. It would be relevant to record that after notice being served upon respondents, it has been specifically averred in para 12 of the reply to writ petition that the deceased has not completed minimum qualifying service of 15 years and to be more specific, the employee completed total service of 14 years 11 months & 12 days only while in employment, that appears to be reason for which his case was not considered for grant of pension and other retirral benefits, to which he was otherwise entitled for under the law. 5. Counsel for petitioner contends that U/r 50 of Pension Rules, 1996, the Government servant has to complete 15 years of qualifying service, and by giving three months notice in writing to the appointing authority, can be allowed to take voluntary retirement from service; and further stipulation is that notice of retirement U/r 50(1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority and with a further proviso that if appointing authority does not refuse to grant permission for voluntary retirement before expiry of period specified in the notice, the retirement shall automatically become effective from the date of expiry of three months' notice period.Counsel submits that in the instant case, indisputably the deceased (petitioner) has not completed minimum qualifying service of 15 years, which was one of condition precedent to invoke R.50 of Pension Rules seeking voluntary retirement - in absence whereof, very order granting retirement to him vide order impugned is not legally sustainable and deserves to be quashed. 6. Counsel further submits that there is no provision U/r 50 of Pension Rules which grants liberty to the authority to condone period of three months notice and that appears to be the reason behind the object to frame R.50 that during intervening period, the employee can consider/rethink as to whether he is inclined to seek premature retirement since it is his own act to seek retirement; and in the instant case, once the employee submitted as alleged, application on 16/04/2007, the authority has accepted the application seeking premature retirement with immediate effect from 17/04/2007, itself, which otherwise was not legally sustainable and the action of respondents deserves to be quashed. 7. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioner indisputable has not completed minimum qualifying service of 15 years and this Court can condone the period of 18 days which are fallen short of, and his application for premature retirement while maintaining the order impugned could be considered for grant of premature retirement which otherwise is admissible to the employee under law and in support, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of this Court in Pratap Singh v. Union of India, 2009(1) WLC (Raj.) 366 . 8. This Court has considered contentions advanced by Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined the material on record. This fact remains uncontroverted that employee had not completed minimum qualifying service of 15 years which is the pre-condition for invoking R.50 of Pension Rules, 1996, which reads ad infra: "50. Retirement on completion of and 15 years qualifying Service - (1) At any time after a Government servant has completed fifteen years qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service." (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority: Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall automatically become effective from the date of expiry of the said period." From a bare perusal of R.50 (supra), it clearly emerges that Government servant on having completed minimum qualifying service of 15 years can give notice to the appointing authority of not less than three months; and the discretion vests with the appointing authority to accept the application within stipulated period failing which application seeking premature retirement becomes automatically effective upon expiry of three months' notice; and the employee stood retired by deeming fiction. 9. But in a case where the employee has not completed minimum qualifying service of 15 years, which is a pre-condition for invoking R.50 of Pension Rules, certainly in the opinion of this Court, the authority could not be held to be justified in invoking R.50 for granting premature retirement to the employee as prayed by him, which could not be held to be valid under law. 10. 10. This Court would like to further record that sooner the application seeking premature retirement is submitted, it is an obligation cast upon the appointing authority to examine as to whether Government servant having submitted application seeking premature retirement, at all fulfils pre-condition of minimum qualifying service of 15 years so as to invoke R.50 of Pension Rules. 11. In the instant case, the appointing authority has failed in discharge of duty while taking into consideration as to whether employee who tendered application seeking premature retirement, as alleged, has at all completed minimum qualifying service of 15 years which could enable him to invoke R.50 of Pension Rules and it becomes more obligatory upon him when the deceased (petitioner) suffering from chronic disease of Schizophrenia as is evident from material having come on record & in such circumstances, it was expected from the appointing authority to take note of other ancillary facts while taking decision impugned for granting premature retirement to the deceased (petitioner); however, there is no provision which can condone period of three months' notice. 12. In instant case, premature retirement was tendered as alleged on 16/04/2007 and the appointing authority while condoning three month's notice has granted premature retirement while passing order impugned next day itself making it effective from 17/04/07, which cannot be said to be in conformity with R.50 of Pension Rules, 1996. 13. Submission made by Government Counsel with respect to relaxation/condonation of 18 days having fallen short of in minimum qualifying service of 15 years in case of petitioner so as to invoke R.50, does not hold good for the reason that there is no provision U/r 50 empowering the authority either to condone or grant relaxation in minimum qualifying service of 15 years & condonation of 18 days by this Court will not be in conformity with R.50 of Rules, 1996. In the facts of the instant case, judgment on which Government Counsel placed reliance is of no assistance. 14. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Order dated 17/04/2007 (An.17) granting premature retirement is hereby quashed & set aside - as a consequence whereof, petitioner (employee) is entitled to all benefits flowing from setting aside order impugned. In the facts of the instant case, judgment on which Government Counsel placed reliance is of no assistance. 14. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Order dated 17/04/2007 (An.17) granting premature retirement is hereby quashed & set aside - as a consequence whereof, petitioner (employee) is entitled to all benefits flowing from setting aside order impugned. Respondents are directed to pass necessary order for his reinstatement by way of de facto sanction treating him in service for the period from 17/05/2007 till he died on 14/12/2010 pendente instant petition and his legal heirs & L/Rs are also entitled for consequential benefits to which the deceased employee was entitled during his life time and posthumous period as admissible under the law. The respondents shall ensure compliance within three months. No costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******