ANWARUL KADIR Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who had served as a Headmaster of Rongrikimgre Deficit Upper Primary School, Baghmara, after rendering 25 years of service opted for Voluntary Retirement and was released from service by the Government on 2/2/2005. The only grievance in the instant writ petition is that the retirement dues under the Meghalaya Death Cum Retirement Gratuity Rules, 1985 (DCRG) has not been released to the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. S.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the benefit of the DCRG cannot be denied to the petitioner in terms of Rule 7 of the Meghalaya Aided School Employees (DCRG) Rules, 1985, as he had voluntarily retired and had not resigned from service. It is further submitted that the ground of denial of DCRG on the basis of Notification No. EDN.220/2007/93 dtd. 6/4/2015, is not tenable, inasmuch as, it is but an amendment by which the entitlement of DCRG under the rules has been made more explicit. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court dtd. 25/10/2019, passed in WP(C) No. 277 of 2017 (Shri. Aynal Hoque vs. State of Meghalaya and Ors.), and in the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Shashikala Devi vs. Central Bank of India and Others. reported in (2014) 16 SCC 260 and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Limited and Others vs. Mohani Devi and Another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 741 respectively.

(3.) Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih, learned GA for the State respondents submits that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered inasmuch as, the petitioner had retired voluntarily in 2005, whereas, the Notification No. EDN.220/2007/93 dtd. 6/4/2015, which includes employees who retired voluntarily, was made effective only from the date of the said Notification. Learned GA has produced a communication dtd. 6/7/2022, indicating this fact, and submits that in view of this situation DCRG was not released to the petitioner.