Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Navraj Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 4 May, 2013
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 9597 of 2013
Date of Decision:04.05.2013
Dr. Navraj Singh
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & others
............ Respondents
*****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:- Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that despite he having submitted a request for voluntary retirement as per Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975, the order of his voluntary retirement has yet not been passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Punjab-respondent No.1.
Petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer on ad hoc basis on 29.1.1987. His services were regularised as Medical Officer in Civil Hospital, Moga on 1.9.1988. Having rendered more than 25 years of service, he submitted an application dated 29.11.2012 seeking premature retirement with effect from 29.2.2013 by giving three months notice as per Rule 3(2) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975. The said request of the petitioner till date has not been finalised by the respondents. Reference has been made to a communication dated 23.1.2013 addressed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Health & Family CWP No. 9597 of 2013 2 Welfare, Punjab-respondent No.1 to the Director, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Punjab-respondent No.2 directing him to send the proposal of retirement of the petitioner within one week, but no action thereon till date has been taken by the said respondent. It has been further asserted that the claim of the petitioner for voluntary retirement is covered in his favour by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 6671 of 2009 titled as Dr. Bharat Bhushan vs. State of Punjab & others, decided on 26.4.2010 (Annexure P-5), wherein it has been held that the employee who submits a request for voluntary retirement will be entitled to claim the same on the expiry of the notice period provided he completes more than 25 years service. Even acceptance of the application for voluntary retirement is not required.
Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner, at this stage, would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the application dated 29.11.2012 (Annexure P-1) submitted by him for voluntary retirement within some specified time.
Without going into the merits of the case or commenting thereon, the present petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider and decide the application dated 29.11.2012 (Annexure P-1) submitted by the petitioner for voluntary retirement within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The decision so taken be conveyed to the petitioner forthwith. If the claim of the petitioner is not to be accepted, a well reasoned and speaking order be passed and conveyed.
04.05.2013 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE