Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 921 (RAJ)

Shanker Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2013-05-07

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this writ petition while praying the following reliefs:- "(a) That the respondents may kindly be directed to make payment to the petitioner from 1.8.2001 till today along with interest. (b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to take the petitioner back in service till his retirement i.e. 31.8.2002 with all consequential benefits. (c) That the writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be accepted and allowed with cost. (d) That any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of National Discipline Scheme Instructor Gr.III on 11.4.1964. While working at Government Upper Primary School Bohera, Tehsil Bari Sadari, District Chittorgarh, he filed an application on 30.10.1999 and sought voluntary retirement from service from 31.1.2000. The application for voluntary retirement of the petitioner was duly forwarded by the Principal of the School to the District Education Officer (Secondary) Education Department, Chittorgarh. But the same was not accepted by the competent authority and, therefore, he moved another application dated 1.8.2000 and had withdrawn earlier application for voluntary retirement. However, despite withdrawal of request for voluntary retirement, the respondent No.4 restrained the petitioner from putting his signature in the attendance register on 21.8.2001 and had also refused to allow the petitioner to attend the school. It was also averred that salary from August 2001 had not been paid to the petitioner. Reliance was placed on an order dated 31.1.2001 issued by the respondent No.2, whereby the date of retirement of the petitioner was mentioned as 31.8.2002 and on the strength of that claim for salary for the period running from 1.8.2001 to 31.8.2002 was raised. 3. Reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been contended that the petitioner had applied for voluntary retirement from 31.1.2000 vide his application dated 30.10.1999 and as per the provisions of Rule 50 the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1996') the retirement of the petitioner from the services of respondents became automatically effective from the date specified in the said application. It is also stated in the reply that in the order dated 31.1.2002 passed by the Secondary Education, Bikaner, the date of retirement of the petitioner was inadvertently mentioned as 31.8.2002 because the petitioner automatically retired on 31.1.2000, the date given in the application for voluntary retirement. It is also averred in the reply that the petitioner himself has informed the respondents vide letter dated 23.2.2000 that he has been relieved from the Government service and, therefore, his pension case should be finalized. It is further averred in the reply that the petitioner illegally marked signatures of him in attendance register, for which a criminal case was also registered against him. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that since the respondents have not accepted the resignation of the petitioner, he should be deemed to be in service of the respondents till the actual date of his retirement i.e. 31.8.2002. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that from the documents annexed with the rejoinder Annex.7 and 8, it is clear that the petitioner remained in service of the respondents after 31.1.2000 and also discharged his duties and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for salary upto the period 31.8.2002, the actual date of retirement of the petitioner. It is further contended that the criminal case registered against the petitioner was resulted in negative final report, which was also accepted by the competent criminal court while holding that no evidence is available of commission of any offence by the petitioner and as such the petitioner has prayed that directions be given to the respondents to pay him the salary from 1.8.2001 to 31.8.2002 along with interest. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgments passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2843/2000 (Achla Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 26.4.2001. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has argued that as per the provisions of Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner automatically came to be retired on 31.1.2000, the date specified in the application for voluntary retirement and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 8. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner moved an application on 30.10.1999 for seeking voluntary retirement and in the said application, the date of retirement was specified as 31.1.2000. It is also not in dispute that the appointing authority had not refused permission for retirement before the expiry of the period i.e. 31.1.2000 specified in the application dated 30.10.1999. 9. Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 as it was existed at the relevant time, is reproduced herein below:- "50. Retirement on completion of 20 years' qualifying service:- (1) At any time after a Government servant has completed twenty yeas 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. 10. From the perusal of above rules, it is clear that a Government servant, who has completed qualifying service can apply for voluntary retirement after giving three months' notice. It is mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 that the notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) of Rule 50 requires acceptance by the appointing authority, however, in the proviso to the Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 it is provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant permission for retirement before the expiry of the specified period in the said notice, the retirement shall automatically become effective from the date of expiry of said period. 11. In view of above statutory Rule, the voluntary retirement of the petitioner became effective automatically on 31.1.2000, the date specified in the application. The judgment referred by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Achala Ram's case (supra) has no application on the facts of the present case as in that case, the employee has moved the application for withdrawal of request for voluntary retirement before expiry of the date specified in the application. The judgment referred by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Achala Ram's case (supra) has no application on the facts of the present case as in that case, the employee has moved the application for withdrawal of request for voluntary retirement before expiry of the date specified in the application. Here in this case, the petitioner has not moved any application for withdrawal before the expiry of the date specified in the application for voluntary retirement and as such as per the deeming provision contained in proviso to Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner stood retired from 31.1.2000. 12. In such circumstances, there is no force in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******