JITENDRA DEV BARMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. M. Lodh, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smti A. S. Lodh, learned counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) The petitioner entered into service as Lower Division Clerk and in due course he was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk. On completion of 20 years of service, he submitted a prayer for voluntary retirement on 17.3.2001, which was, however, not acted upon. Thereafter, on 31.8.2001 he submitted another prayer seeking voluntary retirement, which was, however, accepted and he was allowed to retire voluntarily w.e.f. 30. 11.2001. The order of acceptance dated 6.11 .2001 is quoted below:

(3.) The State respondents contended, inter alia, that the petitioner himself in his notice dated 31.8.2001 prayed for his voluntary re- tirement w.e.f. 30.9.2001 and this being the notice period, his prayer for withdrawal of notice on 5.11.2001 was not in terms of clause (vi) of the voluntary retirement scheme (for short'scheme') introduced by the State Government. According to clause (i) of the said Scheme (Annexure-7), a Govt servant, who has put in not less than 20 years qualifying service may, by giving three months' notice in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service voluntarily. Clause (iii) of the scheme further provides that a notice of less than three months may also be accepted by the appointing authority in deserving cases, with prior concurrence of the Finance Department. Clause (vi), which is the foundation for the above contention that withdrawal must be before expiry of the notice provides as follows: (vi) A notice of voluntary retirement may be withdrawn subsequently only with the approval of the appointing authority provided the request for such withdrawal is made in writing to reach before the expiry of the period of notice, since approval by the appointing authority or non- approval being at the appointing authority's sole discretion." Thus it is contended that as the notice period was to expire on 30.9.2001 as specified by the petitioner himself in his notice, his subsequent prayer for withdrawal of the notice on 5.11.2001 is not in terms of clause (vi) of the Scheme and, therefore, non-acceptance of his request to withdraw the notice by the State respondents does not suffer from any legal infirmity.