Smt. Premlata Goutam vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Hon''ble Shri Justice Keshav Kumar Trivedi

This petition was originally filed as Original Application before Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Jabalpur as O.A. No. 2644/1999 and has come on transfer to this Court after closer of the Tribunal and is registered as Writ Petition. The only grievance of the petitioner is that vide order dated 07/09/1999 the application submitted by the petitioner for voluntary retirement was accepted and she has been voluntarily retired w.e.f 02/09/1999, whereas on the very same date the petitioner has made an application for withdrawal of the said application for voluntary retirement but the same was not looked into only on the ground that the order was already passed. It is contended that the petitioner has not qualified the services for seeking voluntary retirement and therefore such an action of the respondents was bad in law.

The return has been filed by the respondents and they have contended that since the petitioner made an application for voluntary retirement, the same was considered and allowed. Thereafter the petitioner came with the application for withdrawal of the said application for voluntary retirement but she was intimated that she could not be allowed to join back or be permitted to withdraw the application which was already accepted. It is contended that the services of the petitioner were not satisfactory and time and again actions were initiated against her. This being the reason, the petitioner had made the application for voluntary retirement which was accepted. It is contended that no wrong is committed by the respondents and as such the claim made in the petition is liable to be rejected.

Undisputedly the services of the petitioner were governed by the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ''Rules''). Rule 42 of the Rules aforesaid prescribed the procedure for seeking voluntary retirement or retiring an employee compulsorily in public interest. The provision of Rule is reproduced for ready reference:-

Retirement on completion of [20 years] qualifying service-(1)(a) A Government servant may retire at any time after completing 20 years qualifying service, by giving a notice in Form 28, to the appointing authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire or on payment by him of pay and allowances for the period of three months or for the period by which the notice actually given by him falls short of three months:

Provided that where the Government servant giving such notice is under suspension, he shall not be allowed to retire from service without the prior permission in writing of the appointing authority.

(b) The appointing authority may in the public interest require a Government servant to retire from service at any time after he has completed [20 years qualifying service or he attains the age of 50 years whichever is earlier], with the approval of the State Government by giving him three months notice in Form 29:

Provided that such Government servant may be retired forthwith and on such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing then immediately before his retirement or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of three months.

It was necessary on the part of the petitioner to indicate that she has completed the qualifying service for the purposes of seeking voluntary retirement and it was further necessary to give a notice of voluntary retirement as prescribed under the aforesaid Rule. The petitioner was appointed on the post on 02/03/1984 on adhoc basis for a period of three months and thereafter was regularly appointed on 20/08/1986. The petitioner had not completed the requisite years of service for seeking voluntary retirement and no notice could have been given by her. Under the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred as Rules) the petitioner could have resigned from the post by giving a month''s notice or in lieu of notice depositing a month''s salary with the respondents. Nothing is indicated as to whether such was done or not. The notice Annexure-R-1 given by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement cannot be said to be valid notice or intension of voluntary retirement. Even such a retirement was not permissible and therefore it was liable to be rejected outrightly. Instead of rejecting such an application, the same was accepted by the order impugned. In view of this, the order impugned dated 07/09/1999 cannot be affirmed in any way.

If the petitioner was not desirous to remain in the employment, as has been mentioned hereinabove, she could have made a resignation from the post and for the said purposes also, she was required to give a month''s notice. If the services of the petitioner were nolonger required, she could have been given a notice also by the respondent/State but could not have been removed from the services in the manner she has been by the order impugned by allegedly accepting the application for voluntary retirement, which was not maintainable.

In view of this also, the order impugned cannot be sustained. Consequently this writ petition is allowed. Order dated 07/09/1999 (Annexure-A-8) is hereby quashed. The petitioner be reinstated in services in case she is still under the age for reinstatement and be paid the arrears of salary @ 40%. The petitioner will not get any other benefit except the paper seniority of the post. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs.