Judgment : N. Paulvasanthakumar, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the order of the Tribunal made in O.A.No.22 of 2008 dated 08.10.2009, wherein the prayer of the petitioner is to declare that he ceased to be in service on voluntary retirement from 21.02.2007 under the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 48(A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and FR 56(k); to quash the charge memo dated 10.12.2007 issued by the first respondent and for a direction to sanction pension, commutation of pension, service gratuity, leave encashment, GPF balances, Central Government Insurance amount etc., admissible to the petitioner under the relevant Service Rules. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a Senior Resident from 15.09.1981 in the JIPMER, Pondicherry and thereafter appointed as Assistant Professor of Psychiatry from 27.12.1984 in teaching sub-cadre of Central Health Service. The petitioner, then became the Associate Professor of Psychiatry with effect from 08.03.1989 and Professor of Psychiatry with effect from 14.01.1994. The petitioner had been the Head of the Department of Psychiatry in the JIPMER, Pondicherry from October, 1990. 3. The petitioner's Date of Birth being 17.04.1954, his normal date of superannuation is 30.04.2016. In August, 2006, on account of some compelling circumstances due to domestic problem, the petitioner decided to proceed on voluntary retirement and consequently, he had issued a notice on 28.08.2006 seeking voluntary retirement informing the first respondent that due to extraordinary family situation, he had decided to proceed on voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) provided under Rule 48(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which enables a Government servant, who completed 20 years of service, to proceed on voluntary retirement after giving notice in writing for three months. 4. The third respondent also treated the said application dated 28.08.2006, as notice under Rule 48(A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which enables a Government servant to proceed on voluntary retirement after completing 20 years of service by giving not less than three months notice to the appointing authority. 4. The third respondent also treated the said application dated 28.08.2006, as notice under Rule 48(A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which enables a Government servant to proceed on voluntary retirement after completing 20 years of service by giving not less than three months notice to the appointing authority. The third respondent forwarded the application to the second respondent stating that out of three faculty posts sanctioned for the Department of Psychiatry in the JIPMER, two posts were already vacant and it might not be possible to accept the request of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement and if his request is to be considered favourably, a suitable substitute has to be posted in the place of the petitioner and no order is passed by the third respondent till date. 5. As no order was passed by the first respondent, who is the competent authority, the petitioner again submitted a fresh application to the first respondent on 21.11.2006 under Rule 48(A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and FR 56(k) giving three months notice seeking voluntary retirement after the expiry of three months and explaining why he is not able to shoulder the responsibility of running the Department alone, especially in the extraordinary family situation. 6. The three months notice period expired on 20.02.2007. The said application was also forwarded by the third respondent to the first respondent and the petitioner was not served with any reply from the respondents till 21.02.2007. The petitioner did not attend the Office thereafter as no rejection order was issued to the petitioner. The third respondent issued a Charge Memo dated 10.12.2007, as if the petitioner had not attended duties from 21.02.2007. The said Charge Memo was challenged with a consequential prayer as stated supra before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed. 7. Before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner's request seeking voluntary retirement under Rule FR 56(k) and 48(A) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, giving three months notice and requesting to relieve on the forenoon of 20.02.2007 and to provide a suitable substitute in his place before relieving him was forwarded to the first respondent. However, no reply was received from the first respondent and the petitioner stopped attending his duties with effect from 21.02.2007. However, no reply was received from the first respondent and the petitioner stopped attending his duties with effect from 21.02.2007. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner submitted the application by giving three months notice under Rule FR 56(k) and 48(A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 8. No counter affidavit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal. 9. The Tribunal dismissed the Writ Petition stating that the petitioner's application dated 28.08.2006 filed under Rule 48(A) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 having not been disposed of by the Government, during pendency of the same, no fresh application can be filed under Rule 48(A) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 or under FR 56(k). Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to go on voluntary retirement on completion of three months notice period i.e. from 20.02.2007 under the guise of deemed acceptance of voluntary retirement. Hence, the Charge Memo issued for his absence from duty cannot be interfered with. 10. In the counter affidavit filed before this Court by the second respondent, it is stated that the application seeking voluntary retirement dated 28.08.2006 under Rule 48(A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 giving three months notice to be relieved by 20th November, 2006 was forwarded to the first respondent by the JIPMER, by letter, dated 28.10.2006, with a recommendation not to accept the same unless suitable substitute is posted in his place. A reply was given to the JIPMER on 13.11.2006 stating that the petitioner may not be relieved until approval is conveyed by the Ministry. However, no order either accepting or rejecting the approval by the first respondent was passed. 11. From the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent before the Tribunal as well as the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in this Court, it is evident that the petitioner has submitted the application seeking voluntary retirement under Rule FR 56(k) and Rule 48(A) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 from 20.11.2007 giving three months notice, which expired on 20.02.2007. 12. The issue to be considered in this case is as to whether the deemed acceptance of voluntary retirement request of the petitioner is permissible under FR 56(k) and Rule 48 (A) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. 13. 12. The issue to be considered in this case is as to whether the deemed acceptance of voluntary retirement request of the petitioner is permissible under FR 56(k) and Rule 48 (A) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. 13. For proper appreciation, FR 56(k) is extracted hereunder: "56(k)(1)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, if he is in Group 'A' or Group 'B; service or post, (and had entered Government service before attaining the age of thirty-five years), and in all other cases after he has attained the age of fifty-five years: Provided that - (a) Not printed (Since Clause (e) has been Deleted) (b) nothing in the clause shall also apply to a Government servant, including scientist or technical expert who (i) is on assignment under the Indian Technical and Economic Co-operation (ITEC) Programme of the Ministry of External Affairs and other aid Programmes, (ii) is posted abroad in a foreign-based office of a Ministry/Department and (iii) goes on a specific contract assignment to a foreign Government unless, after having been transferred to India, he has resumed the charge of the post in India and served for a period of not less than one year; and (c) it shall be open to the Appropriate Authority to withhold permission to a Government servant under suspension who seeks to retire under this clause. (1-A) (a) A Government servant referred to in sub-clause (1) may make a request in writing to the Appointing Authority to accept notice of less than three months giving reasons therefor; (b) On receipt of a request under sub-clause (1-A) (a), the Appointing Authority may consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the Appointing Authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the Government servant shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the period of notice of three months. (2) A Government servant, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the necessary intimation to that effect to the Appointing Authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his election subsequently except with the specific approval of such authority: Provided that the request for withdrawal shall be within the intended date of his retirement." 14.Rule 48(A) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 reads thus: "48-A. Retirement on completion of 20 years qualifying service. (1) At any time after a Government servant has completed twenty years qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. Provided that this sub-rule shall not apply to a Government servant, including scientist or technical expert who is (i) on assignments under the Indian Technical and Economic Co- operation (ITEC) Programme of the Ministry of External Affairs and other aid programmes. (ii) Posted abroad in foreign based offices of the Ministries / Departments. (iii) On a specific contract assignment to a foreign Government, unless, after having been transferred to India, he has resumed the charge of the post in India and served for a period of not less than one year. (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 become effective from the date of expiry of the said period." 15. From the perusal of the above Rules, which are applicable to the petitioner, it is evident that if the application given seeking voluntary retirement is not rejected or accepted within the expiry of three months notice period, the said application is to be considered as deemed to be accepted and before the acceptance of the voluntary retirement request and within the notice period, the person who is submitting the application is entitled to withdraw the application. Thereafter, even the applicant is not given right to withdraw the application. 16. Similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DINESH CHANDRA SANGMA vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS [ AIR 1978 SC 17 ], wherein the Assam Fundamental and Subsidiary Rules, R.56(b) and R.56(c), which is similar to FR 56(k) was considered. Thereafter, even the applicant is not given right to withdraw the application. 16. Similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DINESH CHANDRA SANGMA vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS [ AIR 1978 SC 17 ], wherein the Assam Fundamental and Subsidiary Rules, R.56(b) and R.56(c), which is similar to FR 56(k) was considered. In the said case, it was held that the relationship between the Government and a person appointed under a written contract and the employment under the Government are matters of status and not of contract, even though it was started initially by a contract, in the sense, the offer of employment was accepted by the employee. In paragraphs 16 & 17, it is held thus: "16. The appellant has voluntarily retired by three months' notice, not in accordance with an express or implied term of his contract of employment, but in pursuance of a statutory rule. Explanation 2 to R.119 makes no mention of retirement under a statutory rule and hence the same is clearly out of the way. The submission that R.119 is superimposed on F.R.56 has no force in this case. 17. The High Court committed an error of law in holding that consent of the Government was necessary to give legal effect to the voluntary retirement of the appellant under F.R.56(c). Since the conditions of F.R.56(c) are fulfilled in the instant case, the appellant must be held to have lawfully retired as notified by him with effect from 2nd August, 1976." 17. Again, in the case of B.J.SHELAT vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS [ (1978) 2 SCC 202 ], similar issue arose regarding the deemed acceptance of voluntary retirement and if no order is passed rejecting the request of voluntary retirement within the notice period of three months. In paragraph 10, it is held thus: "10. It will be useful to refer to the analogous provision in the Fundamental Rules issued by the Government of India applicable to the Central Government servants. Fundamental Rule 56(a) provides that except as otherwise provided in this Rule, every Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty-eight years. Fundamental Rule 56(a) provides that except as otherwise provided in this Rule, every Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty-eight years. Fundamental Rule 56(j) is similar to Rule 161(aa)(1) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules conferring an absolute right on the appropriate authority to retire a Government servant by giving not less than three months' notice. Under Fundamental Rule 56(k) the Government servant is entitled to retire from service after he has attained the age of fifty-five years by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority on attaining the age specified. But proviso (b) to sub-rule 56(k) states that it is open to the appropriate authority to withhold permission to a Government servant under suspension who seeks to retire under this clause. Thus under the Fundamental Rules issued by the Government of India also the right of the Government servant to retire is not an absolute right but is subject to the proviso whereunder the appropriate authority may withhold permission to a Government servant under suspension. On a consideration of Rule 161 (2)(ii) and the proviso, we are satisfied that it is incumbent on the Government to communicate to the Government servant its decision to withhold permission to retire on one of the grounds specified in the proviso." 18. (a). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in STATE OF HARYANA vs. S.K.SINGHAL (1999) 4 SCC 293 following the earlier decisions held thus: "13. Thus, from the aforesaid three decisions it is clear that if the right to voluntarily retire is conferred in absolute terms as in Dinesh Chandra Sangma case by the relevant rules and there is no provision in the rules to withhold permission in certain contingencies the voluntary retirement comes into effect automatically on the expiry of the period specified in the notice. If, however, as in B.J. Shelat case and as in Sayed Muzaffar Mir case the authority concerned is empowered to withhold permission to retire if certain conditions exist, viz, in case the employee is under suspension or in case a departmental enquiry is pending or is contemplated, the mere pendency of the suspension or departmental enquiry or its contemplation does not result in the notice for voluntary retirement not coming into effect on the expiry of the period specified. What is further needed is that the authority concerned must pass a positive order withholding permission to retire and must also communicate the same to the employee as stated in B.J. Shelat case and in Sayed Muzaffar Mir case before the expiry of the notice period. Consequently, there is no requirement of an order of acceptance of the notice to be communicated to the employee nor can it be said that non-communication of acceptance should be treated as amounting to withholding of permission." (b). In the decision reported in TEK CHAND vs. DILE RAM (2001) 3 SCC 290 considered the scope of Rule 48(A) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and in paragraphs 32, 33 and 35 held thus: "32. Under sub-rule (1) of the said Rule, at any time after completion of 20 years qualifying service, a Government servant could give notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority for retirement from service. Under sub-rule (2), voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority. In the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 48-A, it is clearly stated that in case 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 become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. 33. It is clear from sub-rule (2) of the Rule that the appointing authority is required to accept the notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1). It is open to the appointing authority to refuse also on whatever grounds available to it but such refusal has to be before the expiry of the period specified in the notice. The proviso to sub-rule (2) is clear and certain in its terms. If 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 sought for becomes effective from the date of expiry of the said period. In this case, admittedly, the appointing authority did not refuse to grant the permission for retirement to Nikka Ram before the expiry of the period specified in the notice dated 5.12.1994. The learned senior counsel for the respondent argued that the acceptance of voluntary retirement by appointing authority in all cases is mandatory. In this case, admittedly, the appointing authority did not refuse to grant the permission for retirement to Nikka Ram before the expiry of the period specified in the notice dated 5.12.1994. The learned senior counsel for the respondent argued that the acceptance of voluntary retirement by appointing authority in all cases is mandatory. In the absence of such express acceptance the Government servant continues to be in service. In support of this submission, he drew our attention to Rule 56(k) of Fundamental Rules. He also submitted that acceptance may be on a later date, that is, even after the expiry of the period specified in the notice and the retirement could be effective from the date specified in the notice. Since the proviso to sub- rule (2) of Rule 48-A is clear in itself and the said Rule 48-A is self-contained, in our opinion, it is unnecessary to look to other provisions, more so in the light of law laid down by this Court. An argument that acceptance can be even long after the date of the expiry of the period specified in the notice and that the voluntary retirement may become effective from the date specified in the notice, will lead to anomalous situation. Take a case, if an application for voluntary retirement is accepted few years later from the date specified in the notice and voluntary retirement becomes operative from the date of expiry of the notice period itself, what would be the position or status of such a Government Servant during the period from the date of expiry of the notice period upto the date of acceptance of the voluntary retirement by the appointing authority? One either continues in service or does not continue in service. It cannot be both that the voluntary retirement could be effective from the date of expiry of the period mentioned in the notice and still a Government servant could continue in service till the voluntary retirement is accepted. The proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 48-A of the Rules does not admit such situation. 35..........there are three categories of rules relating to seeking of voluntary retirement after notice. In first category, voluntary retirement automatically comes into force on expiry of notice period. The proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 48-A of the Rules does not admit such situation. 35..........there are three categories of rules relating to seeking of voluntary retirement after notice. In first category, voluntary retirement automatically comes into force on expiry of notice period. In second category also, retirement comes into force unless an order is passed during notice period withholding permission to retire and in third category voluntary retirement does not come into force unless permission to this effect is granted by the competent authority. In such a case, refusal of permission can be communicated even after the expiry of the notice period. It all depends upon the relevant rules. In the case decided, the relevant rule required acceptance of notice by appointing authority and the proviso to the Rule further laid down that retirement shall come into force automatically if appointing authority did not refuse permission during the notice period. Refusal was not communicated to the respondent during the notice period and the court held that voluntary retirement came into force on expiry of the notice period and subsequent order conveyed to him that he could not be deemed to have voluntary retired had no effect." (c). One of us (NPVJ) in W.P.No.15066 of 2006 order dated 05.07.2007 allowed a similar Writ Petition and the said order was confirmed in W.A.No.544 of 2008 and held that right of a Government servant to go on voluntary retirement on satisfaction of the conditions is a statutory right and the rejection of voluntary retirement for the reason which are not stated in the Rule was set aside. In Paragraph 5, it is held thus: "5. In view of such settled position, we are of the view that the right of the Government to refuse the prayer of an employee for going on voluntary retirement is controlled by the Rules and statutory provisions. That being the position, in the instant case, the reason which has been assigned in the Government's order refusing the prayer of the sole respondent (writ petitioner) to go on Voluntary retirement, cannot be sustained, since the said decision has not been taken within the four corners of the Rules. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this appeal and we affirm the decision of the learned single Judge of the Writ Court, may be on some additional grounds. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this appeal and we affirm the decision of the learned single Judge of the Writ Court, may be on some additional grounds. The prayer, of the Government servant to go on Voluntary retirement should be accepted by the Government and the terminal benefits of the respondent may be worked out and paid within a period of four weeks from this date. Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petition is closed." (d). Again in W.A.No.2636 of 2010, the Division Bench took the same view. S.L.P. No.17016 of 2011 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 23.08.2011. 19. Applying the said judgments to the facts of this case, the petitioner herein is deemed to be voluntarily retired from service with effect from 20.02.2007. 20. When the matter was posted on 13.11.2013, the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 was directed to get instructions as to whether prior to 21.02.2007 the post held by the petitioner was declared as a scarce category. The learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 on instructions submitted that no such declaration was made that the post of the Head of the Department of Psychiatry is a scarce category post. In such circumstances, the judgments cited above will squarely apply to the petitioner's case. 21. In the light of the Rules and the decisions referred, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.