Rakesh Kumar Mundra vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—The prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the order dated 22.5.2014 vide which the respondents have rejected the prayer of the petitioner for grant of voluntary retirement with immediate effect.

The facts in short are that the petitioner was working on the post of Medical Officer under the respondents since 30.04.1991. He moved an application on 18.1.2013 seeking voluntary retirement from service on medical ground with effect from 30.04.2013. A reminder was also sent on 20.4.2013. However, no order was passed on the application even uptill 30.04.2013 and it was only as late as on 24.07.2013 that an order was issued rejecting his application seeking voluntary retirement.

Thereafter, the petitioner moved yet another application on 30.08.2013 seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 30.10.2013. Instead of granting voluntary retirement, a letter was issued on 20.1.2014 stating that since the due date has already passed, fresh application may be submitted along with the next date of voluntary retirement. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted another application on 26.2.2014 seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 31.5.2014 and this time vide order dated 22.5.2014, his request for voluntary retirement has been turned down on the ground of shortage of specialist medical officers for outdoor patients.

Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Dr. Kalpana Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (SBCWP No. 4526/2014) decided on 16.12.2014.

Reply has been filed. The facts are not disputed. The only objection raised is that at present there is a great scarcity of experienced doctors in almost all branches throughout the State of Rajasthan and despite best efforts made by the State Government the new doctors are not showing their interest in Government job.

In an identical situation, this Court in the case of Dr. Kalpana Singh (supra), allowed the writ petition after taking into consideration Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1996. As per Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996, shortage of doctors cannot be a ground for refusing the voluntary retirement. Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 reads as under:-

"50. Retirement on completion of 15 years'' qualifying Service:

(1) At any time after a Government servant has completed fifteen years qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service.

(2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority:

Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall automatically become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.

GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN''S DECISION

Guidelines for acceptance of notice. - A notice of voluntary retirement given after completion of "fifteen years" qualifying service will require acceptance by the appointing authority. Such acceptance may be generally given in all cases except that the Appointing Authority shall withhold permission to retire a Government servant:

(i) who is under suspension;

(ii) in whose case the disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated for the imposition of a major penalty and the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, is of the view that such disciplinary proceedings might result in imposition of the penalty of removal or dismissal from service;

(iii) in whose case prosecution is contemplated or may have been launched in a court of law.

In such cases, if it is proposed to accept the notice of voluntary retirement approval of the Government should be obtained. Even where the notice of voluntary retirement given by the Government servant requires acceptance by the appointing authority, the Government servant giving notice may presume acceptance and the retirement shall be effective in terms of the notice unless the competent authority issues an order to the contrary before the expiry of the period of notice.

(3)(a) A Government servant referred to in sub-rule (1) may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons thereof;

(b) On receipt of a request under clause (a), the appointing authority subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), may consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months."

The writ petition was allowed by this Court as under:-

"In the present case, the petitioner is entitled to voluntary retirement under Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension Rules), 1996. The said rules are statutory rules. Moreover, the Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 contemplates "a notice to retire" and not "a request seeking permission to retire". The request contemplated in Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 is only in case an employee is seeking waiver of the notice period. The petitioner who is a government servant, is governed by the terms and conditions of service framed by the State Government. They leave no scope with the State to withhold the permission except on the three grounds mentioned therein i.e. in case, the petitioner is under suspension; disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated for the imposition of major penalty; or whose prosecution is contemplated or launched in a Court of Law. The Statute must be read in its entirety for the purpose of finding out the intention and object thereof.

Yet again in Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay, AIR 2002 SC 1706 : (2002) 81 ECC 22 : (2002) 141 ELT 593 : (2002) 3 JT 551 : (2002) 3 SCALE 349 : (2002) 4 SCC 297 : (2002) 2 SCR 945 : (2002) 128 STC 349 : (2002) AIRSCW 1646 : (2002) AIRSCW 968 : (2002) 2 Supreme 156 : (2002) 3 Supreme 155 , the Apex Court held as under:-

"No words or expressions used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. In matters of interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to other words. No provision in the statute and no word in any section can be construed in isolation. Every provision and every word must be looked at generally and in the context in which it is used. It is said that every statute is an edict of the legislature. The elementary principle of interpreting any word while considering a statute is to gather the means or sententia legis of the legislature. Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the court to take upon itself the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions."

Thus, the rule in the present case is absolute except for the three exceptions mentioned above. There was nothing to stop the government from including the clause "public interest or "any other reason", in case, they had any intention or object behind refusing the voluntary retirement either in the interest of the public or otherwise. Thus, the petitioner was not suffering from any of the disqualification incorporated in the Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 making her ineligible from seeking voluntary retirement. No such provision or exception in the Rules has been brought to the notice of this Court, which may enable this Court to come to the conclusion that the State could reject the application on any other reasons except as mentioned in the rules. In the absence of any such provision permitting the State to refuse voluntary retirement on the ground of public interest or any other valid reason, the Government is equally bound by the rules and other terms and condition of the service binding the parties."

Coming back to the present case, admittedly the petitioner is not suffering from any of the disqualification incorporated in Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 making him ineligible for seeking voluntary retirement. No enquiry is pending against him. Neither has he been suspended nor any prosecution is contemplated against him. There is no such provision or exception in the rules which may enable this Court to come to the conclusion that the application could have been rejected on any reasons except as mentioned in the rules.

Moreover, it is not disputed that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Kalpana Singh (supra). Also, this Court is bound by its own order passed in the case of Dr. Kalpana Singh as above.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be deemed to have retired from service with immediate effect. There is no requirement of depositing one month''s salary of the notice period as the petitioner had already moved the last application on 26.2.2014 which should have been accepted but the same was wrongly rejected vide impugned order dated 22.5.2014.