Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that a government employee who opts for voluntary retirement from a future date can withdraw or seek extension of the proposed retirement before the effective date, as long as the retirement has not yet taken effect.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Inderjeet Singh passed the judgment while deciding two connected appeals arising out of the voluntary retirement of H.K. Meena, an Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer in the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Department.
For the context, petitioner had initially applied for voluntary retirement and, after an earlier extension, his retirement was scheduled to take effect on October, 2014.
However, on October 29, two days before the proposed retirement date, he sought a further six-month extension, stating that his health had improved. The State Government rejected the request on October 30 and ordered his voluntary retirement with effect from the afternoon of October 31, 2014.
Petitioner then challenged the order before the High Court. The Single Judge subsequently quashed the retirement order and directed his reinstatement.
Aggrieved by the decision, both petitioner and the State Government preferred separate appeals before the Division Bench.
The Division Bench examined Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, which governs voluntary retirement.
The Court observed that voluntary retirement is to take effect from the date specified by the employee and, where the retirement is prospective, the employee continues in service until that date.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gopal Chandra Misra, the Bench held that a prospective resignation or retirement can be withdrawn before the date on which it is intended to become effective, unless there is a legal, contractual or constitutional bar.
‘Withdrawal’ Need Not Be Expressly Used
The Court observed that merely because the Rules do not specifically prescribe a procedure for extension of the voluntary retirement date, such a request cannot be treated as prohibited.
The Bench further observed that Meena’s communication clearly indicated that he did not want his voluntary retirement to take effect on the previously fixed date.
Therefore, the State could not have ignored the request merely because he had not specifically used the word “withdrawal.”
Accordingly, the Bench upheld the setting aside of the State’s order
Reinstatement Could Not Be Granted Without Prayer
The court noted that “relief which has not been specifically prayed for cannot ordinarily be granted by a Constitutional Court. Since Meena had not sought reinstatement in his original writ petition, the Single Judge could not have granted such relief.”
Court to support also relied on Supreme Court decisions in Bharat Amaratlal Kothari and Naseer-Ud-Din Wani, the Division Bench set aside the reinstatement direction.
Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the reinstatement direction, while clarifying that petitioner would remain entitled to the benefits flowing from the setting aside of the retirement order, except reinstatement.
Court also modified the judgment of the Single Judge to this extent