In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has upheld the voluntary retirement rights of Dr. Shiv Poojan R. Singh, a Superintendent of Post Office in Basti, against the Union of India and others. The case, WRIT – A No. – 68817 of 2015, revolved around the denial of voluntary retirement benefits to Dr. Singh despite his completion of 30 years of service.
Legal Issues
The primary legal issue in this case was whether Dr. Shiv Poojan R. Singh had the right to voluntary retirement under Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension Rules), 1972, after completing 30 years of service, and whether the denial of his request by the Union of India was justified.
Court’s Decision
The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar on July 16, 2024, dismissed the writ petition filed by the Union of India. The court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order, which had quashed the orders dated March 31, 2014, and May 6, 2014, denying Dr. Singh’s voluntary retirement request.
Important Observations
The court made several important observations in its ruling:
1. Right to Voluntary Retirement: The court emphasized that under Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension Rules), 1972, a government servant has the right to retire voluntarily after completing 30 years of service, provided they are not under suspension. The court noted, “Rule 48 gives a right to the retiring employee to claim voluntary retirement subject to two conditions: satisfactory completion of 30 years of qualifying service and not being under suspension.”
2. Employer’s Discretion: The court clarified that while the employer has discretion under Rule 48A (which pertains to 20 years of service), Rule 48 does not require the employer’s acceptance for the retirement to be effective. The court stated, “There is a conspicuous marked difference between both provisions… Rule 48A(2) postulates requirement of acceptance of voluntary retirement by appointing authority, however, the same is lacking in Rule 48.”
3. Timeliness of Disciplinary Actions: The court found that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Dr. Singh were after his effective date of voluntary retirement, rendering them irrelevant to his retirement request. “The departmental charge sheet has been issued on 10.10.2013, much after the effective date of voluntary retirement,” the court noted.
Also Read
Parties Involved
– Petitioner: Union of India and 2 Others
– Respondent: Dr. Shiv Poojan R. Singh and Another
– Counsel for Petitioner: Saurabh Srivastava, Gyanu Shukla, Manoj Kumar Singh, Sunil
– Counsel for Respondent: Ashish Kumar Srivastava, S.C.
