Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/803/2024 on 3 January, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes, reports,
SL. No Date orders or COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
proceedings or
WPSB No.803 of 2024
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
2. Mr. P.S. Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
3. Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Advocate for the respondent nos.4 and 5.
4. According to the petitioner, he served as Senior Research Assistant in Horticulture Department (Uttarakhand) for 10 years and 2 months. In the year 2007 he was offered appointment as Scientific Officer in U.P. Agriculture Research Board, Lucknow and he was relieved by the Competent Authority in the State of Uttarakhand on 16.10.2017 and he joined duties in the State of U.P. Thereafter petitioner has staked claim for pension by contending that his discharge from Horticulture Department (Uttarakhand) has to be treated as Voluntary Retirement. He relies upon an order passed by Director, Horticulture dated 18.01.2021.
5. According to the petitioner, Chief Treasury Officer, Pauri-Garhwal is not releasing his pension despite the order passed by Director, Horticulture.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the provision contained in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Uttarakhand Retirement Benefits Act, 2018 for contending that the petitioner is eligible for pension.
7. Learned State counsel, however, submits that as per Rule 56 (c) of Fundamental Rules which are applicable to the State Employees, a Government Servant becomes eligible for seeking Voluntary Retirement only after he attains age of 45 years or after he has completed qualifying service of 20 years. He submits that till 2007 petitioner had completed only 10 years of service and he was only 34 years of age when he left employment under the State for joining duties under the State of U.P. Thus he submits that it is not a case of Voluntary Retirement but resignation, therefore, petitioner's claim for pension is without any basis.
8. The relevant extract of Rule 56 (c) dealing with Voluntary 2 Retirement is extracted below:-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) or clause (b), the appointing authority may, at any time by notice to any Government servant (whether permanent or temporary), without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attains the age of fifty years or such Government servant may by notice to the appointing authority voluntarily retire at any time after attaining the age of forty-five years or after he has completed qualifying service of twenty years."
9. Learned State counsel, further, submits that a Government Servant can seek Voluntary Retirement by giving notice to the Appointing Authority and when the Appointing Authority accepts the prayer, only then a Government Servant can be said to be voluntary retired.
10. He submits that notice/application given by the petitioner to the Appointing Authority seeking Voluntary Retirement is not produced nor the order passed by Appointing Authority on such application has been produced by the petitioner. Thus, he submits that since the field is covered by Rule 56 (c) of the Fundamental Rules, therefore, reliance by the petitioner on provision of Uttarakhand Retirement Benefits Act, 2018, is misplaced.
11. Learned State counsel seeks time to get further instructions in the matter.
12. On his request, list this case on 07.01.2025.
(Pankaj Purohit, J) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
03.01.2025
SK