R.B. DUBEY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being aggrieved by the orders dated 30.10.2012 and 17.4.2013 has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is put forth by the petitioner that he was initially appointed on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 1.8.1980 to 18.9.1986 on the post of Assistant Professor in Law. Thereafter he was regularly appointed on the said post. By an application dated 27.1.2003, the petitioner sought voluntary retirement under the provisions of Rule 41(1)(a) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as '1976 Rules'). Such a notice of the petitioner was accepted counting the period of ad-hoc services of the petitioner and he was allowed to voluntary retire by order dated 16.7.2003, w.e.f. 10.5.2003.

(2.) By filing a return, the respondents have opposed the claim f the petitioner and have contended that in the writ appeal filed by the respondents against the order of this Court passed in earlier writ petition of the petitioner a liberty was granted by the Court to reconsider the issue. The only rider put was that no detrimental order to the interest of the petitioner should be issued. After examining the entire facts, it was found by the respondents that the ad-hoc service period of the petitioner was not to be counted for the purpose of counting qualifying service for the purpose of permitting voluntary retirement of the petitioner. This particular aspect was taken note of that since now the petitioner has voluntary retired, though on account of a mistake committed by the respondents-State, therefore, the case of the petitioner was to be treated as a special case and for the said purpose it was decided to treat the regular services of the petitioner as qualifying service only for the purpose of granting permission to the petitioner to voluntary retire. This has been done as a special case and therefore, if such a relaxation is granted by the State, it cannot be said that any act done by the respondents or any order passed by them is violative of any statutory rules. It is put forth that such power of relaxation is always available with the State Government as it is the competent authority to make rules and, therefore, the order passed by the respondents are just and proper. It is put forth that on account of petitioner's own application, since the voluntary retirement was granted to him, he cannot be permitted to withdraw the said application after such a long time and since the voluntary retirement already granted to the petitioner is required to be regularized, rightly the orders have been issued by the respondents. It is contended that the petition being misconceived and based on misleading facts, is liable to be dismissed. The rejoinder is nothing but an explanation of whatever stated by the petitioner in his writ petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.