Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 124 (RAJ)

Ratti Ram Rathore v. State of Rajasthan

2012-01-10

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2012
Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondent to treat the petitioner to have voluntarily retired from service with effect from 1.8.2010 and grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner with effect from 1.8.2010. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while working on the post of Office Assistant in the respondent department the petitioner filed an application for voluntary retirement on 23.4.2010 with effect from 1.8.2010 but no order was received by him for either acceptance or refusal of voluntary retirement from the respondents, therefore, the petitioner treated himself to have retired voluntarily from service with effect from 1.8.2010, the date which is given by him in the notice seeking voluntary retirement. Subsequently, however, the petitioner received communication dated 19.7.2010 contemplating to initiate inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, therefore, explanation was sought from the petitioner for his willful absence within 3 days. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the day on which the petitioner filed application for voluntary retirement, there was nothing against him, upon which, the application for voluntary retirement can be rejected, therefore, in view of the Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 the petitioner treated himself deemed to have voluntarily retired from service with effect from 1.8.2010; but the respondents did not treat the petitioner to have voluntarily retired from service even if no order was passed upon his application and issued charge-sheet, so also, passed order for transfer which is totally illegal. Hence, it is submitted that the respondents may be directed to treat the petitioner to have voluntarily retired from service with effect from 1.8.2010 and grant all retiral benefits without further delay. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the Court towards judgments reported in 1991 (1) RLR 693 and 1991(1) WLC (Raj.) 504, in which it has been held that notice of voluntary retirement becomes automatically effective upon expiry of the period specified therein. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently argued that the petitioner is not entitled for any pensionary benefits because before 1.8.2010 a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 was issued vide charge memo dated 19.7.2010 (Annex. 8) which is not in dispute. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently argued that the petitioner is not entitled for any pensionary benefits because before 1.8.2010 a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 was issued vide charge memo dated 19.7.2010 (Annex. 8) which is not in dispute. Thereafter, transfer order was passed by the respondent department on 19.12.2009 whereby the petitioner was ordered to be transferred from Manohar Thana to Kota Barrage against vacant post but he did not join duties, therefore, till completion of the inquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules the petitioner is not entitled for any retiral benefits. 6. During course of arguments, a pointed query is made to learned counsel for the respondents whether on the day on which the petitioner filed application for voluntary retirement any inquiry was pending against the petitioner for inflicting major penalty, upon said query, counsel for the respon-dents submits that no such inquiry was pending or contemplated on the day on which the petitioner filed application for voluntary retirement on 23.4.2010. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 which reads as follows: "50. Retirement on completion of 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." 8. Upon perusal of Rule 50 it is abundantly clear that if the appointing authority does not refuse to grant permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice the incumbent shall be deemed to have retired voluntarily from the date of expiry of the said period. 9. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that there is no documentary evidence on record to show that any order of refusal upon the application filed by the petitioner for voluntary retirement was made by the appointing authority. 9. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that there is no documentary evidence on record to show that any order of refusal upon the application filed by the petitioner for voluntary retirement was made by the appointing authority. Further, there was no contemplation or pendency of any inquiry for inflicting major penalty on the date when the petitioner filed the said application for voluntary retirement with effect from 1.8.2010, therefore, during the period of notice if any inquiry is contemplated that cannot be taken into account to deny the benefit of voluntary retirement to the employee. Therefore, in this case the claim of the petitioner for voluntary retirement from service with effect from 1.8.2010 is based upon Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 and as such the respondents are under obligation to treat the petitioner to have voluntarily retired from service with effect from 1.8.2010 because no order was issued either to accept or reject the application for voluntary retirement. 10. As a result of the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner to have voluntarily retired from service with effect from 1.8.2010 and, accordingly, release all retiral benefits in accordance with rules in favour of him. It is made clear that there is no prayer in the writ petition to quash charge-memo Annex. 8 dated 19.7.2010, therefore, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the said charge-memo/communication in accordance with law. The retiral benefits of the petitioner shall be released within three months from the date of receiving certified copy of this order. 11. No order as to costs.