Dismissed

Dr.Basanta Ku.Mohant v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC15 Feb 2024WP(C)/910/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a communication dated 14.09.2007 regarding his voluntary retirement. The Court held the retirement became effective by operation of law on 05.12.2005 under the proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 42 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, and dismissed the writ application.

What did the court decide?

The writ application was dismissed as it had no merit.

Dr.Basanta Ku.Mohant Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.910 of 2014

¶3

Dr. Basanta Kumar Mohanty

¶4

….

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Mr. Nirmal Ch. Mohanty, Advocate.

¶7

-versus-

¶8

State of Odisha & Others

¶9

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Rabi Narayan Mishra, AGA.

¶10

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE D. DASH

Order No.

ORDER 15.02.2024

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶15

The Petitioner in the present writ application has put to challenge an order dated 14.09.2007 passed by the Opposite Party No.1- Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar, whereby the Petitioner was informed about the acceptance of this voluntary retirement w.e.f. 05.12.2005.

¶16

The limited ground of the Petitioner is to question the impugned communication which has been taken by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner had, in fact, discharged his duties till 12.01.2006 as an Assistant Professor, Pharmacology, MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur.

¶17

Certain facts relevant for adjudication of the present writ application are not at all in dispute. The Petitioner had made an

¶18

application seeking voluntary retirement on 05.09.2005 under Rule-42 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992.

¶19

Sub-rule-1 of Rule-42 permits a Government servant after completion of 20 years of service to apply for voluntary retirement by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority. Sub-rule (2) of Rule (2) further requires that the notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority. The proviso to sub-rule (2) is significant in the

¶20

present matter which reads as under:-

¶21

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 become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.”

¶22

It clearly contemplates that if the Authorities has not refused to grant permission for voluntary retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice (not less than three months), the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. The proviso below sub-rule (2) of Rule-42 of the Pension Rules becomes operative, the moment the period of notice mentioned in the application seeking voluntary retirement came to an end; here in the given case on 05.09.2005. As mentioned in the notice of the Petitioner, itself, he stood retired with effect from 06.12.2005. The Government notification dated 14.09.2007, in the present

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

matter cannot be said to be an acceptance of the Petitioner’s application for voluntary retirement with effect from that date. It is merely a communication regarding his retirement with effect from 05.12.2005, which became effective by operation of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule-41 of the Pension Rules.

¶25

We do not find any merit in this application in the background of the facts which are admitted. This application has no merit, which is accordingly dismissed.

¶26

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh)
Chief Justice
(D. Dash)
Judge

¶27

Himansu/Narayan

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 16-Feb-2024 17:50:37

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Dr.Basanta Ku.Mohant v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Basanta Ku.Mohant v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Sai Om Agency, Koraput Vs State of Odisha