LAD DEVI VYAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality of order dated 23.07.2018 passed by the Joint Director (Training), Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby the prayer of the petitioner seeking voluntarily retirement from service w.e.f. 31.07.2018 stands rejected.

(2.) The facts relevant are that the petitioner entered the service of the department of the Medical and Health, Government of Rajasthan, on being appointed as Health Worker (Female)/ANM on 18.11.1984 and joined the duties on 12.02.1986. The petitioner was granted promotion on the post of Lady Health Visitor (LHV) by order dated 01.04.2016. The petitioner submitted an application to the competent authority on 07.05.2018 under Rule 50 (1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules"). The application submitted by the petitioner was forwarded by the Block Chief Medical Officer, Ladnu to the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Nagaur vide communication dated 08.05.2018. The application preferred by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement has been rejected by the order impugned. Hence this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as per decision of the Government of Rajasthan, permission to retire a Government servant may be refused only to such Government servant: (1) who is under suspension; (2) in whose case the disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated for the imposition of a major penalty and the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, is of the view that such disciplinary proceedings might result in imposition of the penalty of removal or dismissal from service; and (iii) in whose case prosecution is contemplated or may have been launched in a court of law. Learned counsel submitted that none of the situations specified wherein permission to retire a Government servant could be withheld by the appointing authority exists in the petitioner'scase and thus, by virtue of proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 50, the petitioner deserves to be treated as retired from Government service w.e.f. 01.05.2018. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this court in the matter of "Dr. Kalpana Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.", (S.B.C.Writ Petition No.4526/14, decided on 16.12.14).