PURUSHOTTAM Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner was serving as Internal Auditor in the Accounts Department of the Municipal Corporation, Akola. On 02/04/2018 he gave a notice seeking to voluntarily retire from service with effect from 02/07/2018. The Municipal Corporation through its Additional Commissioner however passed an order on 29/06/2018 by which it was stated that the petitioner would superannuate from 30/06/2018. The petitioner issued various communications raising protest that he had indicated that he desired to superannuate from 02/07/2018 and hence the action of accepting his voluntary retirement from 30/06/2018 was illegal. Being aggrieved the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid action.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon Rule 65(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short, the said Rules) submitted that a government servant/employee who proposes to retire on completion of qualifying service can give a notice in writing three months prior to the date of which he desires to retire. The petitioner gave such notice on 02/04/2018 and indicated the proposed date of retirement as 02/07/2018. The same ought to have been accepted by the Municipal Corporation. By retiring the petitioner from 30/06/2018 the rights of the petitioner have been affected. The petitioner was deprived of an annual increment by directing his voluntary retirement on 30/06/2018. Hence this action of the Municipal Corporation was illegal.