Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Yogendra Kumar Sharma vs State & Ors on 29 November, 2016
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5454/2014 PETITIONER:
Yogendra Kumar Sharma son of late Shri Babu Ram Sharma, aged 43 years, resident of 14/262-263, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur, last employed post of Constable 269 CID (CB), O/O Addl. SP Vigilance, Jodhpur Discom, Old Power House, Jodhpur.
Vs. RESPONDENTS:
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary to Govt. of Rajasthan, Home Department, Jaipur.
2. Additional Director General of Police (CID/CB), Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent of Police (Administration and PRC), CID (CB), Rajasthan, Police Headquarter, Jaipur.
Date of order : 29th Nov. , 2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Mr. J.K.Kaushik, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Bissa, AGC, for the respondents.
<><><> The petitioner Yogendra Kumar Sharma has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to deem him voluntarily retired from service w.e.f. 9.6.2014 and 2 to forthwith release pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner with arrears and interest.
Facts essential and germane for the sake of disposal of the writ petition are narrated hereinbelow:-
The petitioner was initially inducted in the Police Department as Constable on 13.2.1992. He was confirmed in service w.e.f. 13.2.1994. His services were transferred to CID (CB) and he was posted at the office of Addl. S.P. Vigilance, Jodhpur Discom. Upon completing about 22 years of service, the petitioner served a notice of three months seeking voluntary retirement vide letter dated 10.3.2014 addressed to his appointing authority, the Superintendent of Police (Administration & PRC), CID (CB), Jaipur. The request letter was received in the office on 10.3.2014. However, the respondents appear not to have taken cognizance thereof within the statutory period of three months as provided in Rule 50(1)(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1996). The petitioner submitted an application and demitted office on 10.6.2014. He was served with a letter dated 18.6.2014 requiring him to furnish a fresh application clearly specifying the date from which he sought 3 voluntary retirement. The petitioner replied to the said communication by letter dated 4.7.2014 wherein he took a specific stand that the application for voluntary retirement was served in the office of Disciplinary Authority on 10.3.2014 with the clear stipulation that the petitioner was seeking voluntary retirement after completion of period of three months from the date of the application and thus, there was no need to give any fresh application in this regard. Despite these communications being exchanged, the respondents till date appear not to have responded to the notice of voluntary retirement dated 10.3.2014 served by the petitioner in accordance with Rule 50(1)(2) of the Rules of 1996. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition.
The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition wherein an objection is taken that the government servant cannot claim relinquishment from post simply by serving a letter like the one submitted by the petitioner. The prayer of the petitioner to deem him as voluntarily retired w.e.f. 10.6.2014 is countered on the ground that the petitioner was directed to submit a fresh application mentioning the specific date 4 from which he desired voluntary retirement. However, the petitioner did not give a proper response thereto. Not only this, he voluntarily absented from duty without any valid order of retirement. This act of the petitioner amounts to gross indiscipline for which he can be subjected to departmental action. On these grounds, the prayer made in the writ petition is opposed.
In support of the contentions raised in the writ petition Mr. J.K.Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Suresh Kumari Sharma Vs. State & Ors. being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1892/2009 decided on 27.8.2010 wherein this Court, after considering the import of Rule 50(1) of the Rules of 1996 held that if the Government does not take a decision on the application for voluntary retirement and communicate the same to the employee, the request for voluntary retirement cannot be considered as being in abeyance unless the employee is facing a departmental enquiry. He thus urged that the writ petition should be accepted in the terms prayed for.
Per contra Mr. Anil Bissa, learned A.G.C. opposed 5 the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He urged that the petitioner did not give proper response to the communication dated 18.6.2014 requiring him to furnish a fresh application indicating the specific date from which he sought voluntary retirement. Thus as per him, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for in the writ petition.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
The voluntary retirement application dated 10.3.2014 submitted by the petitioner to his appointing authority clearly indicated that he desired to be voluntarily retired upon completion of three months from that day (vkt ls). Admittedly, the authorities did not take any decision as required under Rule 50 of the RSR on the application for voluntary retirement submitted by the petitioner on 10.3.2014. The communications which were sent to the petitioner after receiving his application for voluntary retirement appear to be more in the nature of avoiding the issue and nothing beyond that. While submitting the application for voluntary retirement Annexure-3 which 6 was served to the competent authority on 10.3.2014, the petitioner clearly indicated that he desired to be voluntarily retired upon completion of three months from the date of submission of the application. Thus, no further specification of date was required or warranted. Indisputably the petitioner was not facing any departmental enquiry as on the date of submission of application for voluntary retirement. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner stood impliedly retired on 10.6.2014 (Upon completion of three months from the date of submission of the application for voluntary retirement) by deeming fiction of law provided under sub-clause (1) of Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996.
This Court considered an identical controversy in the case of Smt. Suresh Kumari Sharma (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel petitioner and held that the effect of the provision is mandatory in nature and in absence of any order communicating the rejection of the prayer for voluntary retirement within the statutory period of three months, voluntary retirement comes into effect by fiction of law.
In view of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner stood retired 7 from service w.e.f. 10.6.2014 by fiction of law. As a consequence, he is entitled to receive all retiral dues (including pension, gratuity etc.) admissible to him as per law in reference to the date of his voluntary retirement i.e. 10.6.2014 with interest on dues of pension as admissible in Rule 89 of the Pension Rules, 1996. The exercise as directed in the above terms shall be completed within a period of three months from today. Upon failure to do so within the time period provided, the interest shall stand enhanced to 12% p.a. and the responsibility to bear the liability of the enhanced interest shall be that of the officials responsible for causing the delay if any.
The writ petition stands allowed as above.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/Sushil/