Judgment : 1. Heard both sides. 2. The issue lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioner is a Senior Assistant Surgeon in General Medicine in the Government Hospital, Oddanchathiram, Dindigul District. He joined as Assistant Surgeon in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service on 11.12.1991. He applied for voluntary retirement in his letter dated 28.12.2011, which was received by the office of the first respondent on 17.04.2012. The three months notice period expires on 16.07.2012. But his request was rejected by the second respondent by the order dated 04.07.2012 based on the direction issued by the first respondent. 4. The rejection is solely based on G.O.(Ms.)No.408, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 15.12.2009 on the ground that General Medicine is one of the rare specialties, as per that G.O.. Since the petitioner belongs to rare specialty category, as per the G.O.(Ms.)No.408, his request for voluntary retirement was rejected. 5. Therefore, the issue that arose for consideration is as to whether the voluntary retirement of a Doctor belongs to a rare specialty could be declined based on G.O.(Ms.)No.408, dated 15.12.2009 ? 6. The fundamental Rules 56(3) deals with voluntary retirement. As per Rule 56(3)(a) of the Fundamental Rules, a Government servant who has attained the age of fifty-years or who has completed twenty years of qualifying service may retire from service by giving notice of not less than three months in writing direct to the appointing authority with a copy marked to the immediate superior officer for information. Hence, a Government servant has a right to seek voluntary retirement under Clause (3)(a) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules. 7. The period of three months notice referred to in Clause (3)(a) of Fundamental Rule 56, shall be reckoned from the date of receipt of notice by the appointing authority, as per Rule 56(3)(b) of the Fundamental Rules. 8. As per Rule 56(3)(f), the appointing authority shall issue orders before the date of expiry of notice either accepting the voluntary retirement or not accepting the same. If no order is passed, Rule 56(3)(f) presumes that the Government servant shall be deemed to have been retired voluntarily from service at the end of the period of notice. 9. In this case, before the expiry of three months notice period, the impugned order was passed rejecting the request of the petitioner. At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of Rule 56(3)(e). 9. In this case, before the expiry of three months notice period, the impugned order was passed rejecting the request of the petitioner. At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of Rule 56(3)(e). Fundamental Rule 56(3)(e) mandates that the notice for voluntary retirement given by a Government servant shall be accepted by the appointing authority subject to certain conditions. Five conditions are given in Rule 56(3)(e) and if the Government servant satisfies those conditions, there is no option for the Government, but to accept the voluntary retirement. 10. It is, thus, relevant to extract Rule 56(3)(e) of the Rules as hereunder: “56. (3) (e). notice of voluntary retirement given by a Government servant shall be accepted by the appointing authority, subject to the following conditions being satisfied namely :- (i) that no disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending against the Government servant concerned for the imposition of a major penalty; (ii) that no prosecution is contemplated or pending in a Court of Law against the Government servant concerned; (iii) that a report from the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption has been obtained to the effect that no enquiry is contemplated or pending against the Government servant concerned ; (iv) that no dues which cannot be recovered from his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity are pending to be recovered from the Government servant concerned ; and (v) that there is no contractual obligation to serve the Government during the period in which the Government servant concerned seeks to retire voluntarily.” 11. In my view, as per Rule 56(3)(e) of the Fundamental Rules, the Government should have accepted the request of voluntary retirement of the petitioner. In fact, this Court also held in the order dated 16.04.2007 in W.P.No.9880 of 2007 (Dr.Annabelle Rajaseharan V. The Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and others) that the Government cannot refuse to accept the voluntary retirement on any ground other than the grounds mentioned in Rule 56(3)(e). The relevant passage from Paragraph 8 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder : “8. .... From the perusal of the impugned order I could see that the rejection is not based on any one of the five grounds stated in the said rule viz., Rule 56(3)(i) to (v). There is no contractual obligation is in existence between the petitioner and the respondents to serve the Government. .... From the perusal of the impugned order I could see that the rejection is not based on any one of the five grounds stated in the said rule viz., Rule 56(3)(i) to (v). There is no contractual obligation is in existence between the petitioner and the respondents to serve the Government. The reason stated is only scarcity of Medical Officers in the Medical Department. The said reason does not find a place in the rules as a ground for rejection. Hence I am of the view that the impugned order having been passed not before the expiry of three months notice and also not on the ground mentioned in Rule 56(e)(i) to (v), the impugned order cannot be sustained.” 12. In that case, the rejection was made on the ground of scarcity of Medical Officers in the Medical Department. 13. But after the said judgment, the Government issued G.O.(Ms).No.179, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 29.09.2008 incorporating second proviso to Rule 56(3)(f) vesting power with the appointing authority to withhold the permission for voluntary retirement, if the post held by the Government servant has been declared as “Scarce Category”. Rule 56(3)(f) of the Fundamental Rules after amendment reads as follows : “56. (3) (f) The appointing authority shall issue orders before the date of expiry of notice either accepting the voluntary retirement or not. Otherwise, the Government servant shall be deemed to have been retired voluntary from service at the end of the period of notice : Provided that where a Government servant under suspension or against whom disciplinary or criminal action is pending, seeks to retire voluntarily, specific orders of the appointing authority for such voluntary retirement is necessary. The appointing authority may withhold the permission sought for by the Government servant, if any of the conditions specified in clause (e) are not satisfied. Provided further that the appointing authority may also withhold the permission for voluntary retirement sought for by a Government servant if the post held by him has been declared as “Scarce Category” by the administrative department concerned in Secretariat and whose continuation in Government service is absolutely essential in public interest.” 14. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether the General Medicine category is declared as scarce category by the concerned administrative department of the Government. In my view, it is not so. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether the General Medicine category is declared as scarce category by the concerned administrative department of the Government. In my view, it is not so. In G.O.Ms.No.1265, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 18.11.2004, the Government declared that the following categories as scarce categories and that the Doctors serving in those categories shall not be issued No Objection Certificate to take up employment in abroad. G.O.Ms.No.1265 is not relating to voluntary retirement. The relevant passage from paragraph 4 and paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Government Order are extracted hereunder: “4. The Government have examined the proposal and decided to accept the recommendation of the Director of Medical Education. Accordingly, the Government direct that the following categories be declared as scarce categories : CLINICAL NON CLINICAL 1. Nephrology 1. Anatomy 2. Neuro Surgery 2. Physiology 3. Anaesthesia 3. Pharmacology 4. Oncology 4. Forensic Medicine 5. Vascular Surgery 5. Community Medicine 6. Cardiology 7. Cardiothoraric Surgery 8. Neurology 9. Radio Diagnosis & Radiotheraphy The Government also direct that the no objection certificate to Medical Officers belong to the above mentioned scarce categories shall not be issued with effect from the date of issue of orders. 5. The Director of Medical Education / The Director of Medical and Rural Health Services / Director of Public Health and preventive Medicine are instructed NOT to forward the proposals for grant of No Objection Certificate to the categories mentioned in para 4 above for taking up employment abroad. 6. The Managing Director, Overseas Manpower Corporation Limited is also informed that the request of the Medical Officers belong to the scarce categories mentioned in para 4 above shall not be entertained and registered for employment abroad in view of revised orders issued in para 4 above.” 15. This Government Order categorized certain categories as scarce categories for the purpose of not permitting the Doctors serving in those categories to take employment in abroad, while continuing in the Government service. However, it is not for voluntary retirement under the Rule 56(3) of the Fundamental Rules. 16. Then the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.201, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-III) Department, dated 03.11.2006 seeking to amend Fundamental Rules 56(3) to prevent the scarce category employees in Tamil Nadu Medical Services from going on voluntary retirement. However, it is not for voluntary retirement under the Rule 56(3) of the Fundamental Rules. 16. Then the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.201, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-III) Department, dated 03.11.2006 seeking to amend Fundamental Rules 56(3) to prevent the scarce category employees in Tamil Nadu Medical Services from going on voluntary retirement. Accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.179, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 29.09.2008, was issued by inserting second proviso to Rule 56(3)(f) of the Rules, as stated above. 17. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.408, Health and Family Welfare (B2) Department, dated 15.11.2009, listing 49 categories as rare specialties in Clinical side and the Doctor serving in those rare specialties cannot be permitted to go on voluntary retirement, in view of the amendment made to Rule 56(3)(f). 18. In my view, G.O.(Ms.)No.408 does not speak about the scarce category. On the other hand, it speaks about the rare specialty. A rare specialty need not be a scarce category. There is a huge different between the rare specialty and the scarce category. 19. In fact, this Court directed the department to produce the list of specialties and also the rare specialties. Accordingly, the Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai, has produced the list consisting of 65 rare specialties in Clinical side and 49 specialties among them are declared as rare specialties in Clinical side. In fact, this does not convey proper sense to “rare specialty” as almost all the specialties are declared as rare specialty. The number of specialties ought to be in large numbers than the rare specialty, but it is found on the reverse in the list furnished by the Department. In any event, that is not relevant for the purpose of this case. The issue is as to whether the Department issued orders specifying any category as a scarce category for the purpose of second proviso to Rule 56(3)(f). No such orders were issued identifying the scarce category for the purpose of the second proviso to the Rule 56(3) of the Fundamental Rules. 20. Though G.O.(Ms)No.408, refers to Rule 56(3)(f), the Government order speaks of only rare specialties and does not speak of scarce categories. Rule 56(3)(f) is applicable to all the Government servants in all Services under the Tamil Nadu Government including Doctors serving in Tamil Nadu Medical Service. 20. Though G.O.(Ms)No.408, refers to Rule 56(3)(f), the Government order speaks of only rare specialties and does not speak of scarce categories. Rule 56(3)(f) is applicable to all the Government servants in all Services under the Tamil Nadu Government including Doctors serving in Tamil Nadu Medical Service. The respective administrative department could notify certain categories as scarce and could refuse the request of the employees to go on voluntary retirement, who are serving in the scarce categories. But the categorization of a category as a scarce category shall be done based on objective criteria. 21. In fact, the Government categorized in G.O.(D)No.1265, dated 18.11.2004, certain categories as scarce categories for the purpose of refusing the request of the serving doctors in those categories to take employment in abroad. Those categories are mentioned in paragraph 14 of this order. Therefore, in my view, at the most this categorization could be taken as the scarce category. But the respondent cannot decline the request for voluntary retirement of the Doctors serving in rare specialties, since the rare specialty cannot be ipso facto a scarce category. It is for the Department to objectively work out the scarce category and they cannot defeat the very purpose of Rule 56(3). 22. The very purpose of the Rule is to permit the employee to go on voluntary retirement, if he satisfies 56(3)(e) of the Fundamental Rules and in public interest, the employees serving in scarce category may not be permitted to go under voluntary retirement. When a Government servant seeks voluntary retirement, normally the same shall be accepted as per Rule 56(3)(a) of the Fundamental Rules. However, the same can be refused, if public interest requires the service of the Government servant upto the age of superannuation, though he does not have any disqualification under Rule 56(3) of the Fundamental Rules. Therefore, there should be objective application of mind as to the scarce category and if a person serving in scarce category is relieved from his duty on his request of voluntary retirement, the same would be against public interest and the public could suffer. 23. In my view, no prudent person can say that the General Medicine is a scarce category. Even I am doubtful whether it is a rare specialty. 23. In my view, no prudent person can say that the General Medicine is a scarce category. Even I am doubtful whether it is a rare specialty. As stated above, the issue as to rare specialty is not relevant and the General Medicine is not classified as scarce category by way of any Government Order. Hence, the impugned order is in violation of Rule 56 (3) of the Fundamental Rules. 24. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.07.2012 passed by the second respondent is quashed and a direction issued to the first respondent to pass suitable order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order permitting the petitioner to retire voluntarily on completion of three months notice period, with effect from 16.07.2012, and the first respondent is further directed to settle all the terminal benefits within a period of eight weeks thereafter. 25. This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.