w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Dr. Ravi Shanker Goyal v/s State of Rajasthan & Others

    Civil Writ Petition No. 1854 of 2015

    Decided On, 20 August 2015

    At, High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

    For the Petitioner: L.K. Ramdhari, Advocate. For the Respondents: Anil Bissa, A.G.C.



Judgment Text

1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner a serving Doctor in the respondent Department has approached this Court praying that the respondents be directed to accept the application submitted by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 1.10.2013 as per Rule 50 (1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon decisions of this Court in the cases of

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

Dr. R.R Modi v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 624 of 2005) decided on 25.2.2005, Dr. Rakesh Kumar Mundra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7737 of 2014) decided on 27.4.2015, Dr. Duresh Narayan Mathur v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2012 (4) WLN-1, Dr. Alok Bhati v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2012(4) WLN-111 and Dr. Kalpana Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4526 of 2014 in support of the prayer made in the writ petition and urges that the writ petition deserves to be accepted in light of these judgements.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents candidly conceded that he has been informed that no inquiry or any other adverse circumstances exist on the basis whereof the prayer of voluntary retirement made by the petitioner can be denied. He, however, contends that the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement was not accepted and the petitioner, absented from duty without any justification on which, he was issued a letter dated 23.9.2013 to submit an explanation as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him.

4. The petitioner admittedly, submitted an explanation thereto. A letter written by the Addl. Director (Gaz.), Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur to the Dy. Secretary, Medical & Health (Gr.-2) Department, Jaipur has been placed on record confirming that no departmental inquiry was pending against the petitioner on the date of submission of the application for voluntary retirement. In this background, the Dy. Secretary was requested to take an administrative decision on the petitioner's prayer for voluntary retirement. Thereafter, the petitioner was conveyed a letter dated 5.10.2013 by the Principal Medical Officer of the PH. C. Gajsinghpur that he had absented from duty. The petitioner replied to the said letter on 9.10.2013 mentioning that he was impliedly retired on 1.10.2013 in reference to Rule 50(1) of the Rajasthan Pension Rules and thus he was not required to appear for duty thereafter. The Dy. Secretary (Admn.) issued a letter Annex. 12 dated 20.3.2014 rejecting the prayer for voluntary retirement submitted by the petitioner. Admittedly such rejection was ordered much after the period of 90 days from the date of submission of the application for voluntary retirement by the petitioner.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that the petitioner carries no disqualification so as to disentitle him from seeking voluntary retirement. The decision to reject the petitioner's prayer was undertaken long after expiry of the mandatory period of 90 days from the date of submission of application for voluntary retirement. As per sub rule 1 of Rule 50 of the Pension Rules, in case, the appropriate authority does not pass any order on the application seeking voluntary retirement, the prayer for voluntary retirement becomes effective automatically by efflux of time. Thus, the order dated 20.3.2014 was belated and the authority concerned was not even empowered to pass such order because the petitioner stood impliedly retired on 1.10.2013 where after no order rejecting the application for voluntary retirement could be passed. The controversy thus is squarely covered by the judgement rendered by this Court in Dr. Kalpana Singh's case (supra).

7. As an upshot of the above discussion, the writ petition deserves to be and in hereby accepted. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as voluntary retired from service with effect from 1.10.2013 onwards. He shall be entitled to all consequential benefits as per his entitlement in terms of the relevant Service/Pension Rulers. The accrued monetary benefits shall be released within a period of two months from the date of submission of copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a.

The stay application stands disposed of.

No order as to costs.

Writ Petition Allowed As Above.
OR

Already A Member?

Also