PREMLATA GOUTAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was originally filed as Original Application before Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Jabalpur as O.A.No.2644/1999 and has come on transfer to this Court after closer of the Tribunal and is registered as Writ Petition.

(2.) THE only grievance of the petitioner is that vide order dated 07/09/1999 the application submitted by the petitioner for voluntary retirement was accepted and she has been voluntarily retired w.e.f 02/09/1999, whereas on the very same date the petitioner has made an application for withdrawal of the said application for voluntary retirement but the same was not looked into only on the ground that the order was already passed. It is contended that the petitioner has not qualified the services for seeking voluntary retirement and therefore such an action of the respondents was bad in law.

(3.) IT was necessary on the part of the petitioner to indicate that she has completed the qualifying service for the purposes of seeking voluntary retirement and it was further necessary to give a notice of voluntary retirement as prescribed under the aforesaid Rule. The petitioner was appointed on the post on 02/03/1984 on adhoc basis for a period of three months and thereafter was regularly appointed on 20/08/1986. The petitioner had not completed the requisite years of service for seeking voluntary retirement and no notice could have been given by her. Under the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred as Rules) the petitioner could have resigned from the post by giving a month's notice or in lieu of notice depositing a month's salary with the respondents. Nothing is indicated as to whether such was done or not. The notice Annexure-R-1 given by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement cannot be said to be valid notice or intension of voluntary retirement. Even such a retirement was not permissible and therefore it was liable to be rejected outrightly. Instead of rejecting such an application, the same was accepted by the order impugned. In view of this, the order impugned dated 07/09/1999 cannot be affirmed in any way.