Sh. Jia Lal vs State Of H.P. & Ors.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

This application is allowed and disposed of in light of the averments made therein.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-

Annexure P-2 is the communication, in terms whereof, the resignation of the petitioner as a Forest Worker was accepted by the employer on 27.01.2021.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in terms of Annexure P-1, the petitioner had made a request for being retired on account of the reasons mentioned therein. However, rather than retiring the petitioner or rejecting his prayer in terms of Annexure P-2, a purported resignation submitted by the petitioner was accepted, whereas no such prayer was ever made by the petitioner. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner in terms of Annexure P-1 had expressed his desire to be retired. However, in terms of Annexure P-2, without there being any request on the part of the petitioner of resigning him from the Government job, his resignation has been accepted w.e.f. 31.01.2021, which request in fact was never made by the petitioner. Learned Counsel submitted that the entire service which was rendered by the petitioner with the respondents has been put to naught by this act of the respondents.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General by referring to the reply filed by the respondents has submitted that though the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.01.2021, but as the petitioner was not covered under CCS Pension Rules, therefore, after examination of his case, his resignation was accepted by Divisional Forest Officer vide communication dated 27.01.2021 w.e.f. 31.01.2021. He submitted that there is no illegality in the said act of the Authority and therefore, as there is no merit in the petition, the same be dismissed.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the relevant record appended with the pleadings, this Court is of the considered view that Annexure P-2 is not sustainable in the eyes of law at all.

In terms of Annexure P-1, the petitioner had not expressed his desire to resign from the job. He had expressed his desire of seeking retirement. If the case of the petitioner was not falling within the legal parameters governing retirement, then the Authority should have had rejected the prayer of the petitioner for retirement. Rather than doing so, it suo motu converted the request of the petitioner for retirement to that of resignation and arbitrarily and illegally accepted the same. It is not as if after the Authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to seek retirement, it called upon the petitioner to make a request for resignation and he made any such request. Thus, the acceptance of resignation of the petitioner in terms of Annexure P-2 is without there being any request whatsoever by the petitioner to resign from the Government job.

Therefore, as obviously as Annexure P-2 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, this petition is allowed and Annexure P-2 is quashed and set aside. As far as other issues raised in the petition are concerned, the same, as prayed for, are not being adjudicated in this petition, but liberty is given to the petitioner to raise them by way of a fresh petition, if so desired. The quashing of Annexure P-2 of course is with all consequences.

The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.