SHRIKANT JAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that he gave a notice of voluntary retirement under the provisions of Rule 42 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (herein after referred to as 'Rules'). Accepting the said notice of voluntary retirement, order was passed on 03.04.2007 permitting the petitioner to voluntary retire with effect from 31.08.2006. As a result, pension papers of the petitioner were prepared and sent for sanction and since the final pension was to be granted, the petitioner was paid anticipatory pension. However, all of a sudden, without there being any justified reason intimated to the petitioner, the order impugned was issued on 14.05.2009 directing stoppage of the anticipatory pension, therefore, petitioner was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. By the said communication, it was pointed out that the pension case of the petitioner was not accepted by the Treasury Officer.

(2.) THIS writ petition was entertained, notices were issued to the respondents and an interim protection was granted directing that the operation of the order withholding the anticipatory pension of the petitioner shall remain stayed. The return has been filed by the respondents stating that the petitioner gave the notice under Rule 42(1)(a) of the Rules only when he has completed 15 years of qualifying service. However, an amendment in the Rules was already made with effect from 5th April, 2006 and the qualifying service to opt for voluntary retirement was enhanced to 25 years for the Medical Officers. That being so, in fact the notice of voluntary retirement given by the petitioner was not to be accepted at all and he was not to be permitted to voluntary retire, since the petitioner has not completed the qualifying service for the said purposes. That being so, the final pension papers sent by the Department were not accepted by the Treasury Officer and, therefore, the anticipatory pension granted to the petitioner was withheld. It is thus contented that the order is rightly passed and the relief claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted.

(3.) BEFORE authorizing any person to relinquish the post, orders are to be passed by the competent authority. No public servant governed by the Rules could relinquish the post on voluntary retirement without the permission of the competent authority. Such permission is required to be granted keeping in view the circumstances as stated under the Rules. If a Government servant is under suspension or where it is under consideration of the competent authority to institute disciplinary action against the Government servant, he or she may not be allowed to voluntary retire. This aspect is totally different than that of relinquishing the post by resignation. Therefore, unless there is an authenticated order, voluntary retirement will not take place only because of giving of notice by an employee or officer. From the perusal of the order passed by the respondents on 03.04.2007, it is clear that voluntary retirement of the petitioner was accepted with effect from 31.08.2006, though he has not completed qualifying service of 20 years on that day. If that was the position, the respondents were required to refuse the grant of permission to the petitioner to voluntary retire. In that circumstances, the petitioner would have remained in the employment or could have exercised his option of resigning from the post, which would have forfeited the entire service. At any rate, the petitioner could not be blamed in accepting the order of voluntary retirement issued in his favour. That being so, without examining these provisions, the direction to withhold anticipatory pension of the petitioner could not have been issued and, therefore, the said order cannot be treated to be a justified order by this Court.