SOMLUBHAI SONJIBHAI GANVIT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has moved this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of the respondents in not accepting the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement with effect from 31.5.2007 and prayed to direct the respondent authorities to process his application for voluntary retirement and to pay the benefits of retiral benefits to the petitioner.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on 1st March, 1983 as Talati cum Mantri under the respondent No.1 in Surat District. He opted for District Transfer and was posted in Valsad District on 11th April, 1994. On account of bifurcation of Valsad District, the petitioner then came within the Navsari District.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that on account of his ill-health, he was required to go on leave but then, he decided to opt for voluntary retirement and made an application dated 2.3.2007 for voluntary retirement with effect from 31.5.2007. Pending such application, the petitioner requested to grant leave on health ground from 2.3.2007 to 29.5.2007. Such leave was granted by the respondent No.3 Taluka Development Officer. The petitioner has further averred that on completion of the notice period of ninety days, the petitioner since did not receive any reply, made representation to the respondent authorities to process his case for voluntary retirement. However, instead of considering his case for voluntary retirement, respondent No.3 issued show cause notice dated 26.6.2007 stating that the petitioner has proceeded on unauhtorized leave and has shown negligence towards his duties. Thereafter, treating the petitioner on service, the respondents served the petitioner with order of transfer intimating the petitioner to resume duties at the place of transfer. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was intimated by respondents by letter dated 10.8.2007 stating reasons for not processing application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement from 30.5.2007. The respondents then rejected the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement and asked the petitioner to resume duties and further stated that if the petitioner issues fresh notice for voluntary retirement, same could be considered. The petitioner has stated that the petitioner was still served with further letter dated 14.2.2008 asking the petitioner to resume at the place of transfer within seven days. The petitioner replied the said letter and requested to process his original application for voluntary retirement. However, being tired with the attitude of the respondents, the petitioner has filed this petition praying for the above said reliefs.