Allowed

Dr. Dilip Kumar Kala S/O Shri Doulatmal Kala v. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary to Government

Rajasthan HC7 Mar 2019CW/1453/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Bench held that rejection of voluntary retirement application was arbitrary. Court quashed the order directing department to pay dues within four months.

What did the court decide?

Quashed order dated 15-11-2018. Declared petitioner deemed retired effective 12-12-2018. Directed payment of dues within four months.

What the court decided

Dr. Dilip Kumar Kala S/O Shri Doulatmal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Dr. Dilip Kumar Kala S/o Shri Doulatmal Kala aged about 60 years & 7 monhs r/o A-10, Anand Vihar, Gopalpura Bypass Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) at present working as Principal Specialist Tuberculosis in the Directorate of Medical & Health Swasthya Bhawan Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶3

Versus

¶4

State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary to Government, Medical & Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶5

The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Medical & Health (Gr.II) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶6

The Director (Public Health) Medical & Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶7

Date of Order: March 7th, 2019.

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶10

Mr. Praveen Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr. Harshal Tholia on behalf of Dr. VB Sharma, AAG for respondents.

¶11

BY THE COURT :

¶12

Under challenge as arbitrary and illegal, is the order dated 1511-2018 whereby the petitioner's application under Rule 50(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter `the Rules of 1996') for voluntarily retirement effective 12-12-2018 has been rejected.

¶13

¶14

The petitioner, Principal Specialist Tuberculosis, Directorate of Medical & Health, Swasthya Bhawan Jaipur through application dated 10/13-9-2018 apparently for the reason that he required time for self in the evening of his life sought voluntary retirement effective 12-12-2018 on the ground that he had attained the age of 60 years and 6 months, had served for about 33 years. That application was processed by the department but vide order dated 15-11-2018 rejected on the administrative grounds of the pressing need for providing medical facilities to the public at large. The inarticulated reason was that on the petitioner’s retirement as sought voluntarily the public interest would be jeopardized.

¶15

Mr. Praveen Sharma, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application for voluntary retirement of a government servant under Rule 50(1) of the Rules of 1996 cannot be refused in the absence of preconditions set out by the Government’s guiding note under Rule 50(2) of the Rules of 1996. The said administrative guidance note provides that voluntary retirement sought can be refused only if the concerned government servant is under (I) suspension or (ii) disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated against him for the imposition of a major penalty or (iii) that the disciplinary proceedings might result in imposition of

¶16

¶17

penalty of removal or dismissal from service. None of the conditions aforesaid for denial of voluntary retirement on application appropriately made were even remotely made out in the petitioner's case. Nor in fact the order of refusal so states. Thus under Rule 50(2) of the Rules of 1996 the petitioner was entitled to have his application accepted and be treated as voluntarily retired effective 12-12-2018. Counsel to support his contention placed reliance on a judgment of this court in the case of Dr.Kalpana Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, SBCWP No.4526/2014 decided on 16-122014.

¶18

Reply to the petition, quite mechanical as it usually is and without addressing the specific case set up or the obtaining legal position relied on has been filed. It has been submitted that the petitioner works in the Medical department which serves a crucial role in providing health services to the general public. The number of medical officers in the department is inadequate and therefore due to this administrative reason the request for voluntary retirement by the petitioner could not be accepted and was rightly rejected.

¶19

Heard. Considered.

¶20

A perusal of Rule 50(1) of the Rules of 1996 indicates that it

¶21

¶22

contemplates a notice/ application by the employee in service, precondition of number of years of service being fulfilled, to voluntarily retire. The application under the said rule cannot be construed as a mere request seeking permission to retire which can be rejected on the mere whim and untrammeled discretion of the employer. The request for voluntary retirement is to be made only in case an employee seeks waiver of the whole or part of the notice period of three months otherwise statutorily required for voluntary retirement. The application for voluntary retirement can be rejected by the competent authority only in case the employee concerned seeking voluntary retirement is under suspension, or disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated for imposition of major penalty on him or if his prosecution is contemplated or has been launched in a court of law. Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 has to be read in its entirety for its intention and object to be deciphered. The petitioner’s application for voluntary retirement under Rule 50(1) of the Rules of 1996 has been rejected without due application of mind. No notified ground for its rejection in fact obtained. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the law in the judgment in the case of Dr. Kalpana Singh (supra) squarely attracts to the petitioner’s case. Counsel for respondents is not in a position to controvert the facts of the case or to point out any legally permissible specific cause for rejecting the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement by

¶23

5 resort to Rule 50(2) of the Rules of 1996.

¶24

Consequently, the impugned order dated 15-11-2018 is quashed and set aside. It is declared that the petitioner be deemed to have retired effective 12-12-2018 in terms of his application under Rule 50(1) of the Rules of 1996. The petitioner would be entitled for all due benefits to those voluntarily retiring under Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996. Due amounts be paid to the petitioner not later than four months from today.

¶25

The petition stands accordingly allowed. (Alok Sharma), J. arn/

Dr. Dilip Kumar Kala S/O Shri Doulatmal Kala v. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Dr. Dilip Kumar Kala S/O Shri Doulatmal Kala v. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Tarun Gaur S/O Shri Y.R. Gaur Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Kumar Meena S/O Bhanwar Lal Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Bokan Vs R P S C Ajmer

Poonam Kharara Wife of Shri Kundan Kharara Vs the State of Rajasthan

Swati Jakhar D/O Shri Rajeev Jakhar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Charan Das Agrawal S/O Shri Murari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan