AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present intra Court appeal assails the order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 8010/2014 dismissing the petition in question challenging the order dated 17.12.2014 whereby without considering the request of withdrawal of voluntary retirement application, the same was accepted and the petitioner was retired w.e.f 31.12.2014 from the post of Assistant Grade-III.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.
The writ Court after going through the facts of the case has found that initially the petitioner''s request for retirement w.e.f 31.12.2014 vide annexure P/4 was received by the competent authority on 01.10.2014 (Annexure P/4) under Rule 42 sub rule (1)(a) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (1976 Rules for brevity). The said application fulfilled the necessary requirements of law.
By pointing out the terminology used in application (Annexure P/5), learned counsel for the petitioner contented that the said terminology clearly reflected the intention of withdrawal of application for voluntary retirement in terms of Rule 42 (2), without using the expression "withdrawal" in specific terms. The application Annexure P/4 for voluntary retirement and P/5 alleged to be withdrawal application are reproduced below:-
izfr]
Jheku~ vk;qDr egksn;
Hkw&vfHkys[k ,oa cUnkscLr] e0iz0
eksrhegy] Xokfy;jA
fo"k;%& LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fRr oh0vkj0,l0 iznku djus ckor~A
egksn;]
lfou; fuosnu gS esjh iRuh dh ekufld fLFkfr Bhd u gksus ds dkj.k cPpksa o ikfjokfjd nkf;Roksa dk fuoZgu djus ls eSa fnukad 31-12-2014 ds i''pkr~ ''kkldh; lsok djus esa vleFkZ gwWaA eSaus fu/kkZfjr izksQkeZ&28 Hkjdj vkosnu ds lkFk layXu dj fn;k gSA
vr% mDr fnukad dks eq>s LoSfPNd lsok fuo`Rr oh0vkj0,l0 iznku djus dk d"V djsaA
fnukad 29] flrEcj 2014
izkFkhZ
c`tfd''kksj [kjs
lgk0 xzsM 3
vuqHkkx&15 U;k;ky; eq[;ky;
izfr]
Jheku~ vk;qDr egksn;
Hkw&vfHkys[k ,oa cUnkscLr] e0iz0
eksrhegy] Xokfy;jA
fo"k;& oh0vkj0,l0 iznk; djus ckor~A
lanHkZ %& esjk vkosnu i= fnukad 01-10-2014
egksn;]
fo"k;kUrxZr ds lanfHkZr vkosnu }kjk fnukad 31-12-2014 ls oh0vkj0,l0 pkgk x;k gSA
Jheku~ ls fouez fuosnu gS fd mDr vkosnu ekg tqykbZ 2015 rd yfEcr j[kus dk d"V djsaA rkfd esjs ikfjokfjd thou esa mRiUu gqbZ leL;k dk fujkdj.k dj ldwaA ml le; tSslh Hkh ifjfLFkfr fufeZr gksxh] rc Jheku~ ds le{k iqu% fuosnu djus mifLFkr gksmaxkA
fnukad %& 14-11-2014
izkFkhZ
c`tfd''kksj [kjs
lgk0 xzsM 3
vuqHkkx&15 U;k;ky; eq[;ky;
The relevant Rules 42 (2) of 1972 Rules which deals with employee''s right to voluntarily retire, for conveniences is reproduced below :-
"A Government servant who has elected to retire under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) and has given the necessary intimation to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his election subsequently except with the specific approval of such authority on consideration of the circumstances of the case to withdraw the notice given by him:"Provided that the request for withdrawal shall be prior to the intended date of his retirement.
Perusal of Rule 42(2) of 1972 Rules reflects that the request of voluntary retirement can be withdrawn by filing appropriate application in that regard. This request for withdrawal of voluntary retirement was made on 14/11/2014, which was not treated as an application for withdrawal of the proposal for voluntary retirement, instead it was an application with a mere request to keep the application for voluntary retirement dated 01/10/2014 in abeyance till July, 2015 stating that as and when, situation is conducive, petitioners shall again renew the prayer for voluntary retirement.
It is settled principle of law that when the language used in the statutory provision is clear and unambiguous then the Court cannot read some thing which the plain language does not reveal. More so, if the Court starts reading something which is not evident from plain language of the statutory provision then it may lead to violation of the very object behind the provision.
Provision under the Rule 42 (2) and its proviso clearly bestow the government servant with the option to withdraw the request for voluntarily retirement prior to the intended date of his retirement. The expression ''withdraw'' can not be construed or interpreted to mean ''hold in abeyance''. The statute only gives option to withdraw and not to hold the request for voluntarily retirement in abeyance.
In this case, the government servant desired to postpone the date of voluntary retirement by keeping the matter hanging till eternity. This certainly violates the object behind the statutory provision which inter alia contemplates expeditious disposal of application for voluntarily retirement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of K.L.E. Society v. Dr. R.R. Patil and anr., 2002 (5) SCC 278 which in considered opinion of this Court does not deal with the question involved in the present case therefore, the same is distinguishable on facts and thus of no avail to the petitioners.
In view of above discussion, the present appeal deserves to be and is therefore, dismissed.