This order grants voluntary retirement to a government employee. The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the State to process the application, deeming the petitioner retired with effect from July 31, 2018.
The writ application is allowed; the impugned order is quashed; the petitioner is deemed retired w.e.f. 31st July 2018.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 3841/2018
Smt. Alice Joseph W/o Shri K.k. Jose , Resident Of C/o Shri M.p. Soni, Ward No. 20, Near Police Station Loharu Road, Pilani District Jhunjhunu At Present Working As L.h.v. At Phc Bhakthawarpura Block Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Order
11/07/2018
Counsel for the parties are not in disputed on the proposition that controversy raised in the instant writ application has already been resolved, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court of the land in the case of Dinesh Chandra Sangma Vs.
State of Assam & Ors.: (1977) 4 SCC 441 . Moreover, a coordinate Bench of this Court, Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Dr. Kalpana Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SCWP No.
(2 of 3)
[CW-3841/2018]
4526/2014, decided on 16th December, 2014, on the survey of earlier opinions of this Court so also in the backdrop of law declared by the Apex Court of the land while dealing with scope and interpretation of Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension Rules), 1996 (for short, Rules of 1996), observed thus:
“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, 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. There is 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 M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs Bombay, JT (2002) 3 SC 551, 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
(3 of 3)
[CW-3841/2018]
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.
In this view of the matter, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be deemed to have retired from service w.e.f. 3.7.2014 i.e. after the expiry of 3 months from the last notice sent by her on 2.4.2014.”
In view of the statement made by the counsel for the parties and opinion of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court relied upon and law declared by the Apex Court of the land; the writ application of the petitioner merits acceptance.
In the result, the writ application is hereby allowed.
Impugned order dated 22nd December, 2017 is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement in order to enable her to retire forthwith. Counsel for the parties agreed that now the petitioner shall continue to perform her duties upto 31st July, 2018, and she would be retired w.e.f. 31st July, 2018.
No costs.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J
M.Meena/26
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to voluntary retirement under Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension Rules), 1996.
Whether the State can refuse voluntary retirement on grounds other than those specified in the rules.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dinesh Chandra Sangma Vs. State of Assam & Ors.Relied on¶17
(1977) 4 SCC 441 · Who else cites this
Dr. Kalpana Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.Relied on¶21
SCWP No. 4526/2014, decided on 16th December, 2014
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Alice Joseph
The State of Rajasthan
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
