B P KHARE Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed stating that petitioner, while working as Medical Officer in Civil Hospital, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha had applied for voluntary retirement on 1/9/2011 on the ground that his mother is paralyzed and, therefore, he is required to take care of her and for the said reason he is unable to perform his duties. Copy of the application is placed on record as Annexure P/2. The said application was received in the Office of CMO, Vidisha on 1/9/2011 itself. However, the same has been rejected after almost three years by impugned communication dated 24/6/14, whereby petitioner was given to understand that the application has been rejected on 19/5/14.

(2.) On notice, respondents have filed counter affidavit and justified the order of rejection (Supra) for the reasons stated in the order itself i.e. due to shortage of doctors in the department.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, taking exception to the aforesaid order, contends that the justification given for rejection of the application is dehors the provisions as contained in Rule 48 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short the "Pension Rules") and the order impugned is in violation thereof. It is contended that even otherwise as the application for voluntary retirement was submitted and received on 1/9/2011 and the same since was not adverted to and decided within one month as required under Rule 42(1) (a) of the Rules, the same is deemed to have been allowed as petitioner fulfilled other requisite qualification such as two years qualifying service and submission of application in Form 28. To bolster his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.272/14 decided on 7/10/14. The same has attained finality as learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the SLP arising therefrom has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.