been declared to be completely and permanently incapacitated for further service and it is further proposed to invalidate him. This rule seems to be mandatory. It was therefore, necessary for the respondents no. 1 and 2 to inform the appellant that such report has been received and it is proposed to invalidate her. Such intimation having not been given, there has been breach of Rule 74 and principles of natural justice. Such notice was necessary also because of the fact that the Rule 74 gives the appellant or the employee right to appeal against the finding of the Board. On account of non intimation, a valuable right of the appellant has been lost. The appellant has contended that she has filed an application for voluntary retirement and her request was rejected by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed an affidavit of one Wasim Ahmad on 12th December, 2014 and alongwith that affidavit they have filed Form No.6. It seems that the appellant has been given three years additional service benefits on account of the fact that she holds a Ph.D.Degree in Zoology. From Form No.6, it is clear that she has put in more than 22 years of service. Under Rule 66, 20 years is the qualifying service for voluntary retirement and pension. Since the appellant had put in more than 22 years of service, the respondent is bound to consider the request of the appellant for voluntary retirement. The orders passed on 18th March, 2006 and 21st February, 2007 are therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside...”
