AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arun Monga, J
Having rendered 15 years’ of unblemished service as Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (ANM), the petitioner herein seeks issuance of an appropriate writ and/or direction commanding the respondents to accept her application dated 18.12.2006 (Annex.5) for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30.04.2007.
Briefly, relevant facts leading to the instant writ petition are as follows :-
2.1. After her appointment as ANM on 26.09.1990 petitioner was initially was posted at Dholpur. Soon after, on 14.11.1990, she was transferred to Pali. She was subjected to frequent transfers in her service.
2.2. Upon completion of 15 years’ qualifying service, petitioner submitted an application dated 18.12.2006 seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30.04.2007 by giving 3 months notice.
2.3. On 24.04.2007, due to ill health condition of her father-in-law, the petitioner had to go her native place. She submitted her leave application to the controlling officer, which in turn was forwarded to the competent authority for sanction.
2.4. While at her native place, the petitioner herself got indisposed as she suffered from dislocation of L-4, 5 and because of severe back pain, she could not join duty. She was served with notice dated 01.05.2008 for willful absence from duty. She submitted her response along with medical proof of her not being fit to work.
2.5. Meanwhile, petitioner was not informed about any decision, either way, on her pending application dated 18.12.2006. After lapse of three months notice period, the petitioner deemed herself to be retired from service as per 1996 Rules. However, the respondents are not according her the retiral benefits by treated her as retired.
In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5 and respondent No.6, respectively and have perused the case file along with material placed on record.
Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to note that writ petition was filed on 10.03.2022, notice was issues on 07.04.2022 and there after, listed five times and thus ample opportunity was given to file a return to the petition, yet respondents chose not to respond. Finally, they were also cautioned vide an order dated 16.05.2024 passed by this Court in following terms :-
“Reply is still awaited. It appears that the Registry has wrongly listed the case in ‘Reply filed’ category.
Last opportunity is granted to file the reply, failing which, the same shall be entertained on a payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/-.
List on 14.08.2024 for arguments. It is made clear that in case, the reply is not filed before the next date of hearing, arguments will be heard regardless.”
It transpires that despite aforesaid caution no reply was filed. On resumed hearing today, the position remains the same as the respondents have chosen not to file any reply to the petition.
In the premise, the averments contained in the present writ petition are deemed to be admitted.
Be that as it may, de hors the averments contained in the present petition, even otherwise, the inaction on the part of the respondents on the pending application seeking VR has to be interpreted and read in the light of Rule 244 read with Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996. It is clearly envisaged therein that prior notice of three months period before seeking voluntary retirement, if not responded by the employer, then the application seeking voluntary retirement submitted by the petitioner shall be deemed to have been accepted. In fact, provisions for VRS were amended in the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 on 01.12.1999. Amended Rule 50 of the Rules of 1999 is reproduced as below:-
"50. Retirement on completion of 15 years’ qualifying Service
(1) At any time after a Government servant has completed fifteen years qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service."
(2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority:
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 automatically become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.”
(emphasis supplied)
Concededly, in the presently case, the record appended with petition reveals that the petitioner gave three months’ prior notice dated 18.12.2006 seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30.04.2007 and the competent authority did not refuse the grant thereof within the specified period. It is/was thus not out of place for the petitioner to consider herself as a deemed retired employee on expiry of the notice period.
Conjoint reading of Rule and the application dated 18.12.2006 leaves no manner of doubt that the petitioner has to be treated a retired employee and her application dated 18.12.2006 has to be treated as deemed to have been accepted.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed; and the impugned action of the respondents in not granting retiral benefits is set aside. Consequences to follow. The respondents are directed to ensure release of all retiral benefits by treating the petitioner as a retired employee including pension and pensionary benefits if she is otherwise eligible for the same as well as other retirements benefits. The respondents are also directed to pay the arrears to the petitioner along with interest @ 6% per annum.
Disposed of accordingly.