ORDER 1. By this petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Dr. Suresh Kumar Majegi is aggrieved by order dated 23.12.2014 passed by the Additional Director (Administration), Directorate of Health Services, Satpura Bhawan, Bhopal whereby the application of the petitioner for taking voluntary retirement has been rejected for the reason that there is being scarcity of doctors in Madhya Pradesh. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent/Department on 29.8.1978 and after the period of probation he was regularized and transferred to various places and worked satisfactorily and finally the petitioner worked as Child Specialist at the District hospital, Neemuch. On 29.5.2009 the petitioner met with an accident and therefore he remained on medical leave for a long time. In the accident the spinal cord of the petitioner was fractured and he is undergone a severe operation. Besides Varun Majegi, son of the petitioner is also disabled and suffering from severe mental retardation with autistic featar and he requires absolute personal attention. And hence, the petitioner is not in a position to work any more with the respondent department; as for a long period of 32 years he has already been practices for the Government and hence, the petitioner submitted an application for V.R.S. by depositing Rs.61,548/­ as per rule 42(1)(k) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. However, the application of the petitioner has not been accepted by the respondent and the application was referred to the higher authorities of the Department. Thereafter the same was rejected by impugned order dated 23.12.2014 (Annexure P-6). 3. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that as per provisions of Rule 42 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, a Government servant may retire on completing 25 years of qualifying services by giving a notice to the appointing authority at least a month before the date on which he/she wishes to retire or on payment of pay and allowances for a period of one month in lieu of such notice. Counsel submitted that when all the formalities have been correctly carried out by the petitioner, then it is not within the jurisdiction of the respondent to reject the application. The rule does not even contemplate ‘acceptance’ unless the Government servant is under suspension of a departmental/disciplinary action. Counsel submitted that when all the formalities have been correctly carried out by the petitioner, then it is not within the jurisdiction of the respondent to reject the application. The rule does not even contemplate ‘acceptance’ unless the Government servant is under suspension of a departmental/disciplinary action. The rule was interpreted by this Court in the decision of Indra Prakash v. State 1985 JLJ 504 = 1985 MPWN 209 = 1985 MPLJ 229 and matter was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Narayan Prasad v. the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Ratlam, whereby the Court has held in paragraph 10 as thus :­ “10. The decision of this Court in Indra Prakash vs. State of M.P. 1985 MPLJ 229 has taken the same view. It was held that a govt. servant who has completed 20 years qualifying service has an absolute and indefeasible right to retire at any date of his choice. The notice of voluntary retirement does require any order or acceptance by the appointing authority.” 4. Counsel submitted that these decisions have further been followed by this Court in the matter of Dr. Umesh Chandra Sharma v. State of M.P. Writ Petition No.4382/2006. Finally, Counsel for the petitioner relied on Dr. Amita Lunawat v.State of M.P. W.P. No.4786/2014, reported in 2015(1) MPWN 99 whereby this Court has held that the notice of voluntary retirement given by a Government servant under Rule 42(1(a) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 does not require any acceptance by the appointing authority and it is the unilateral act of the Government servant and such notice comes into effect automatically on the expiry of the notice period. And the Court relying on the aforesaid authorities had quashed the impugned order and held thus : “The petitioner shall be deemed to be retired w.e.f. the date mentioned in the application for voluntary retirement Annexure P-1. The respondents are directed to finalize the terminal/pensionary dues of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and pay the same without any delay. The petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Court in case if any grievance survives after finalization of the terminal/pensionary dues.” 5. The respondents are directed to finalize the terminal/pensionary dues of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and pay the same without any delay. The petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Court in case if any grievance survives after finalization of the terminal/pensionary dues.” 5. Hence,Counsel submitted that the impugned order dated 23.12.2014 (Annexure P-6) was contrary to the provisions of law and the same be quashed and the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to retire voluntarily since the rejection is also contrary to the liberty and livelihood of the petitioner as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it is illegal and arbitrary. 6. Counsel for the respondents/State, on the other hand, has fully supported the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner’s services were required by the nation and on administrative ground alone the application had been rejected. He however, candidly admitted that there was no departmental enquiry or any other matter pending against the present petitioner even according to the impugned order dated 23.12.2014 (Annexure P-6). However, counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. On considering the above submissions, considering the length of services and the fact that son of the petitioner requires personal attention and placing reliance in the matter of Dr. Amita Lunawat (supra), I find that the impugned order needs to be set aside and it is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be deemed to be retired w.e.f. the date mentioned in the application for voluntary retirement. The respondents are directed to finalize the terminal/pensionary dues of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and pay the same without any delay. The petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Court in case if there are any grievance survives after finalization of the terminal/pensionary dues. 8. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the petition is allowed to the extent herein above indicated. Abhishek Tugnawat for petitioner; Mukesh Parwal for respondent/State.