1 REPORTABLE SUPREMECOURTOFINDIA CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION CivilAppealNo.8421Of2018 (ArisingoutofS.L.P.(Civil)No.12601of2018) STATEOFUTTARPRADESH&ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS ACHALSINGH RESPONDENT WITH CivilAppealNo.8422of2018 (ArisingoutofS.L.P.(Civil)No.18737of2018) CivilAppealNo.8423of2018 (ArisingoutofS.L.P.(Civil)No.18739of2018) AND CivilAppealNo.8424of2018 (ArisingoutofS.L.P.(Civil)No.18741of2018) JUDGMENT Signature Not Verified [ENTITY],J.
1. Leavegranted.
2. The State of Uttar Pradesh in the appeals is aggrieved by commonjudgmentandorderdated29.11.2017passedbytheDivision BenchoftheHighCourtofAllahabad,allowingthewritpetitionsfiled by the respondents herein seeking voluntary retirement from the Governmentservices.Directionswereissuedtotreattherespondents tohaveretiredfromGovernmentserviceswitheffectfrom30.11.2017 and31.12.2017.
3. Themainquestionforconsiderationbeforeusisastowhether underRule56oftheUttarPradeshFundamentalRules(hereinafter referredtoastheFundamentalRules)asamended,anemployeehas unfettered right to seek voluntary retirement by serving a notice of three months to the State Government or whether the State Government under the Explanation attached to [SECTION] of the FundamentalRules,isauthorisedtodeclinetheprayerforvoluntary retirement in the public interest under [SECTION] of the FundamentalRulesasapplicabletotheStateofUttarPradesh.
4. TherespondentDr.AchalSinghwasworkingasJointDirector in Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Lucknow Region, Lucknow filedanapplicationdated14.12.2016forvoluntaryretirement w.e.f. 31.3.2017.RespondentDr.AjayKumarTiwariwasholdingthepost of Joint Director, Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Devi Patan Mandal,Gonda,filedanapplicationon28.2.2017seekingvoluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.5.2017. Respondent Dr. [ENTITY],filedanapplicationfor voluntary retirement on 15.4.2015 and respondent Dr. [ENTITY] was working as Senior Consultant at District Hospital, Raibareli,hesoughtvoluntaryretirementbyfilinganapplicationon 3.12.2016. Theapplicationsremainedunattendedandnoorderhad beencommunicated,hencewritpetitionswerefiledintheHighCourt. The respondentsdoctors were members of the Provincial Medical Services.
5. The High Court in the impugned judgment and order has observedthatitistheresponsibilityoftheauthoritiestomonitorthe health system in the State and they have to sincerely examine the issues as to how the working of the Government hospitals can be improvedforthebettermentofthegeneralpublicandfindoutwhy doctorsareoptingforvoluntaryretirementeveryday.TheHighCourt also observed that the doctors are not interested in joining the Government service when fresh recruitments take place. The High CourthasalsonotedthatpostsofMedicalOfficersarenotbeingfilled uponaccountofnonavailabilityofcandidates. TheHighCourthas further noted that those who have entered into Government service arecontinuouslyoptingforvoluntaryretirementfromservicecausing serious scarcity of doctors in Government hospitals and Primary HealthCentres.
6. TheHighCourtintheimpugnedjudgmenthasalsoreferredto thereportof theMCIandtheexistingproportionofonedoctorper 2000 population. In fact, the number of doctors is much smaller than the number given in the MCI report. The High Court also observedthatthedoctorsarebeingposted,inspiteofscarcity,onthe administrative posts that causes wastage of specialised talent. The High Court has also observed that the authorities must provide adequate infrastructure, working equipment, and a proper working environment.Thehospitalsshouldbemadeexcellentcentresofhealth care. It should be the object of the State Government to provide doctorswithgoodopportunitiessoastoretaintheminservices. At the same time, the High Court has also observed that in order to enhancethebettermedicalfacilitiestothepoorandneedypeople,it wouldbeappropriatetomaintainabalancebetweentheseniorand junior doctors in each Primary Health Centres in rural and urban areas. There is a need to provide continuing medical education to doctorsandtoholdconferencesandseminarstoexchangethelatest views/opinions/knowledgeetc.andtheirperformanceinsuchevents shouldalsobeconsideredforpromotionetc. Atthesametime,the HighCourthasallowedthewritpetitionsandtreatedthedoctorsto haveretiredvoluntarilyonthedatesspecified.Aggrievedthereby,the Statehascomeupintheseappeals.
7. It was urged by Mr. [ENTITY], learned senior counsel appearedonbehalfofappellantthatasperExplanationattachedto Rule56oftheFundamentalRulesasamendedintheStateofUttar Pradesh, it was open to the State Government to take a decision whether to retire an employee voluntarily under [SECTION] duly considering the public interest or decline the applications for voluntaryretirement.Itwasalsosubmittedthatthereisnoautomatic retirementontheexpiryoftheperiodofnoticeofthreemonthsserved underRule56asapplicableintheStateofUttarPradesh.Therehas tobeanexpressordergrantingpermissiontoretirevoluntarily,only thereafteranemployeecanbesaidtohaveretiredvoluntarily. There isascarcityofdoctorsintheProvincialHealthServicesintheStateof Uttar Pradesh, thus, the State Government has not accepted the applications for voluntary retirement. The directions issued by the High Court is based on a misinterpretation of [SECTION] of the FundamentalRulesandisagainstthepublicinterest.
8. Itwascontendedbylearnedseniorcounselappearingonbehalf of the appellants that in the case of Dr. [ENTITY], the State Government has passed the order on 31.5.2017. The prayer for voluntaryretirementwasrejectedonthegroundoflackofspecialised doctors and in public interest and the notice seeking voluntary retirement under [SECTION] was rejected and in other cases, the applicationswerekeptpending.TheyfurthercontendedthatRule56 contemplatesanoticeandnotarequestforvoluntaryretirement.An employee is not required to give reason while giving a notice for voluntary retirement and in any such event, such reasons are not justiciable. It is a prerogative of the employee to seek voluntary retirement.Therightoftheemployeetoretirevoluntarilycorresponds with the right of the State Government to retire himin the case of deficiencyinservices.[ENTITY][PRECEDENT] seekit. Theacceptanceoftheappointingauthorityisrequiredonly whenthedisciplinaryenquiryispendinganditspendencyhasbeen communicatedtotheemployee.Oncenoticeofthreemonthsisgiven, thedoctorisdeemedtohaveretiredandanyactionofattemptingto reject the notice of voluntary retirement after the said date is ineffective in law. The decision has to be taken within a period of three months, otherwise, the employee is automatically deemed to haveretiredonthelapseofthreemonthsperiod. Itwascontended thatthecourtnottointerferewiththeprincipleofcertaintyofruleof lawmaybeappliedandlongstandingprecedentof [ENTITY]) maynotbedislodgedandbeappliedtothecasesat hand. The only condition of voluntary retirement is fulfilled after completionof20yearsofserviceandifitisallowed,itdoesnotaffect theavailabilityofdoctors.TheStatehasnottakencaretorecruitthe doctors. It is not permissible to withhold the order of voluntary retirement. In case this Court does not agree with the decision rendered in [ENTITY] (supra), the matter may be referredtoalargerBench. TheviewtakenbytheHighCourtinthe impugnedjudgmentandordermaybeaffirmedwiththeriderofan impositionofthemoratoriumtobalancetheequities.
9. Inordertoappreciatetherivalsubmissions,itisnecessaryto consider the Fundamental Rules as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Thesameissomewhatdifferentfromtherulesframedin otherStates.Rule56ofFundamentalRulesasamendedintheState ofUttarPradesh,isextractedhereunder:
56.(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Rule, every Government servant other than a Government servant in inferiorserviceshallretirefromserviceontheafternoonofthe lastdayofthemonthinwhichheattainstheageoffiftyeight years. He may be retained in service after the date of compulsoryretirementwiththesanctionoftheGovernmenton public grounds which must be recorded in writing, but he mustnotberetainedaftertheageof60years 1exceptinvery specialcircumstances.
(b) AGovernmentservantininferiorserviceshallretirefrom serviceontheafternoonofthelastdayofthemonthinwhich heattainstheageofsixtyyears.Hemustnotberetainedin service after that date, except in very special circumstances andwithsanctionoftheGovernment.
(c)Notwithstandinganythingcontainedinclause(a)orclause
(b),theappointingauthoritymay,atanytimebynoticetoany Government servant (whether permanent or temporary), without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attainstheageoffiftyyearsorsuchGovernmentservantmay bynoticetotheappointingauthorityvoluntarilyretireatany timeafterattainingtheageoffortyfiveyearsorafterhehas completedqualifyingserviceoftwentyyears.
1 In the Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department in State Medical and Health Services,theretirementageofMedicalOfficersinpublicinteresthasbeenapprovedas62 yearsinplaceof60yearswithcertainconditionsvideNotificationNo.2324/SEC252017 7(237)/2014dated31.5.2017.
(d)theperiodofsuchnoticeshallbethreemonths:
Providedthat
(i) any such Government servant may by order of the appointing authority, without such notice or by a shorter notice,beretiredforthwithatanytimeafterattainingtheage offiftyyears,andonsuchretirementtheGovernmentservant shallbeentitledtoclaimasumequivalenttotheamountof hispayplusallowances,ifany,fortheperiodofthenotice,or asthecasemaybe,fortheperiodbywhichsuchnoticefalls short of three months, at the same rates at which he was drawingimmediatelybeforethisretirement;
(ii) it shall be open to the appointing authority to allow a Government servant to retire without any notice or by a shorter notice without requiring the Government servant to payanypenaltyinlieuofnotice:
Provided further that such notice given by the Government servantagainstwhomadisciplinaryproceedingispendingor contemplated, shall be effective only if it is accepted by the appointing authority, provided that in the case of a contemplateddisciplinaryproceedingtheGovernmentservant shallbeinformedbeforetheexpiryofhisnoticethatithasnot beenaccepted:
Provided also that the notice once given by a Government servantunderclause(c)seekingvoluntaryretirementshallnot be withdrawn by him except with the permission of the appointingauthority.
(e) Aretiringpensionshallbepayableandotherretirement benefits, if any, shall be available in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the relevant Rules to every Government servant whoretiresorisrequiredorallowedto retireunderthisrule.
Provided that where a Government servant who voluntarily retires or is allowed voluntarily to retire under this rule the appointing authority may allow him, for the purposes of pensionandgratuity,ifany,thebenefitofadditionalserviceof fiveyearsorofsuchperiodashewouldhaveservedifhehad continued till the ordinary date of his superannuation, whicheverbeless;
Explanation. (1) The decision of the appointing authority underclause(c)torequiretheGovernmentservanttoretireas specified therein shall be taken if it appears to the said authoritytobeinpublicinterest,butnothinghereincontained shallbeconstruedtorequireanyrecital,intheorder,ofsuch decisionhavingbeentakeninthepublicinterest. (2) In order to be satisfied whether it will be in the public interesttorequireaGovernmentservanttoretireunderclause
(c),theappointingauthoritymaytakeintoconsiderationany material relating to the Government servant and nothing herein contained shall be construed to exclude from consideration
(a) anyentriesrelatingtoanyperiodbeforesuchGovernment servantwasallowedtocrossanyefficiencybarorbeforehe waspromotedtoanypostinanofficiatingorsubstantive capacityoronanadhocbasis;or
(b) any entry against which a representation is pending, provided that the representation is also taken into considerationalongwiththeentry;or
(c) any report of the Vigilance Establishment constituted under the [ACT].
(2A)Everysuchdecisionshallbedeemedtohavebeentaken inthepublicinterest.
(3) Theexpressionappointingauthoritymeanstheauthority whichforthetimebeinghasthepowertomakesubstantive appointments to the post or service from which the Government servant is required or wants to retire; and the expressionqualifyingservice'shallhavethesamemeaningas intherelevantRulesrelatingtoretiringpension. (4) Every order of the appointing authority requiring a Governmentservanttoretireforthwithunderthefirstproviso toclause(d)ofthisruleshallhaveeffectfromtheafternoonof thedateofitsissue,providedthatifafterthedateofitsissue, theGovernmentservantconcerned,bonafideandinignorance ofthatorder,performsthedutiesofhisofficehisactsshallbe deemed to be valid notwithstanding the fact of his having earlierretired. Reading of the aforesaid rule makes it clear that an employee canberetiredbytheGovernmentafterheattainstheageof50years or Government servant may voluntarily retire at any time after attaining the age of 45 years or after he has completed qualifying serviceof20yearsunderRule56(c).ItisprovidedintheRule56that GovernmentmayretireaGovernmentservantwithoutanynoticeorby serving a shorter notice and on such retirement, the Government servantshallbeentitledtoclaimasumequivalenttotheamountof his pay plus allowances, if any, for the period of notice or for the perioditfallsshortofthreemonthsatthesameratesatwhichhewas drawing immediately before his retirement. It is also open to the Government to allow a Government servant to retire without any notice or by a shorter notice without requiring the Government servanttopayanypenaltyinlieuofnotice.TheprovisotoRule56(d) makesitclearthatthenoticegivenbytheGovernmentservantagainst whomadisciplinaryproceedingispendingorcontemplated,shallbe effectiveonlyifitisacceptedbytheappointingauthorityandprovided that in case of a contemplated disciplinary proceeding, the Governmentservantshallbeinformedbeforetheexpiryofthenotice thatithasnotbeenaccepted.Itisalsoprovidedthatonceanoticeis givenbyaGovernmentservantseekingvoluntaryretirementshallnot be withdrawn by him except with the permission of the appointing authority.
Rule56(e)providesthatpensionandotherretiralbenefitsshall beavailabletoeveryGovernmentservant,whoretiresorisrequiredor allowedtoretireundertherule. ProvisotoRule56(e)providesthat appointingauthorityatitsdiscretionmayallowbenefitsofadditional service of 5 years to such employees who voluntarily retires or is allowedvoluntarilytoretireundertheruleforthepurposesofpension and gratuity or of such period as he would have served if he had continuedtilltheordinarydateofhissuperannuation.
10. The explanation attached to [SECTION] makes it clear that the decision of the appointing authority under [SECTION] to retireaGovernmentservantshallbetakenifitappearstobeinpublic interest. The explanation is applicable to both the exigencies viz., when Government retires an employee or when an employee seeks voluntaryretirement,notonlywhenGovernmentdesirestoretirean employeeinpublicinterest. TheExplanationattachedtoRule56as applicableintheStateofUttarPradeshisclearandprecise.
11. Inouropinion,whethervoluntaryretirementisautomaticoran order is required to be passed would depend upon the phraseology usedinaparticularruleunderwhichretirementistobeorderedor voluntaryretirementissought.Thefactualpositionofeachandevery case has to be seen along with applicable rules while applying a dictum of the Court interpreting any other rule it should be Pari Materia. Rule56(2)dealswiththesatisfactionoftheGovernmentto requireaGovernmentservanttoretireinthepublicinterest.Forthe purpose, the Government may consider any material relating to GovernmentservantandmayrequisitionanyreportfromtheVigilance Establishment.
12. The respondents have relied on dictum in [ENTITY]vs.StateofAssam,(1977)4SCC441,athreeJudgeBenchof thisCourtobservedasunder:
7. Before we proceed further we may read F. R. 56 as amended:
F.R.56(a)Thedateofcompulsoryretirementofa Government servant is the date on which he attainstheageof55years.Hemayberetainedin serviceafterthisagewith sanctionoftheState Government on public grounds which must be recorded in writing and proposals for the retentionofaGovernmentservantinserviceafter this age should not be made except in very specialcircumstances.
(b)Notwithstandinganythingcontainedinthese rules the appropriate authority may, if he is of theopinionthatitisinthepublicinteresttodo so, retire Government servant by giving him noticeofnotlessthanthreemonthsinwritingor threemonths'payandallowancesinlieuofsuch notice,afterhehasattainedfiftyyearsofageor hascompleted25yearsofservice, whicheveris earlier.
(c)AnyGovernmentservantmay,bygivingnotice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriateauthority,retirefromserviceafterhe has attained the age of fifty years or has completed 25 years of service, whichever is earlier.
It is clear from the above that under [SECTION] the Government may retire a Government servant in the public interestbygivinghimthreemonths'noticeinwritingorthree months' pay and allowances in lieu thereof after he has attained theage of fifty years or has completed 25 years of service,whicheverisearlier.
8. As is wellknown Government servants hold office during thepleasureofthePresidentortheGovernor,asthecasemay be, under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. However, the pleasuredoctrineunderArticle310islimitedbyArticle311(2). ItisclearthattheservicesofapermanentGovernmentservant cannot be terminated except in accordance with the rules made under [SECTION] subject to [SECTION] of the [ACT] and the Fundamental Rights. It is also well settled that even a temporary Government servant or a probationer cannot be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except in accordance with [SECTION]. The above doctrine of pleasure is invoked by the Government in the publicinterestafteraGovernmentservantattainstheageof 50 years or has completed 25 years of service. This is constitutionally permissible as compulsory termination of service under [SECTION] does not amount to removal or dismissal by way of punishment. While the Government reservesitsrighttocompulsorilyretireaGovernmentservant, even against his wish, there is a corresponding right of the Governmentservantunder[SECTION]tovoluntarilyretirefrom service by giving the Government three months' notice in writing.Thereisnoquestionofacceptanceoftherequestfor voluntaryretirementbytheGovernmentwhentheGovernment servantexerciseshisrightunder[SECTION].Mr[ENTITY] thereforerightinconcedingthisposition.
13. F.R. 56 is one of the statutory rules which binds the GovernmentaswellastheGovernmentservant.Thecondition ofservicewhichisenvisagedinRule56(c)givinganoptionin absolutetermstoaGovernmentservanttovoluntarilyretire withthreemonths'previousnotice,afterhereaches50years ofageorhascompleted25yearsofservice,cannottherefore be equated with a contract of employment as envisaged in Explanation2toRule119.
14. The field occupied by F. R. 56 is left untrammelled by [SECTION]. The words "his contract of employment"inExplanation2areclinchingonthepoint.
17.TheHighCourtcommittedanerroronlawinholdingthat consentoftheGovernmentwasnecessarytogivelegaleffectto the voluntary retirement of the appellant under [SECTION]. Since the conditions [SECTION] theinstant case, the appellant must be heldto have lawfully retired as notifiedbyhimwitheffectfromAugust2,1976.
13. It was submitted that despite the absence of any identical language, the rule involved in [ENTITY] (supra) is comparablewithUttarPradeshFundamentalRulesandtherefore,the judgmentisbinding.Thesubmissionbaseduponthesamecannotbe acceptedandRule56(b)(c)cameupforconsiderationwassomewhat differentandtherewasnosuchExplanationtoRule56.
14. In [ENTITY] (supra) he was the District and SessionsJudgeatDibrugarhintheStateofAssam. Onaccountof domestictroubles,hedidnotwanttocontinueafterattainmentofthe ageof50years.HeservedanoticeunderRule56(c)asamendedby the Governor of Assam under [SECTION] of the [ACT] by notificationdated22.7.1975. Theformalnoticewasserveduponby him. The Government allowed him to retire from the State GovernmentServiceandthentherewerecertaindevelopmentsinthe GovernmentandGovernmentsoughttoretraceitsstepsandpassed anorderon28.7.1976,countermandingitsearlierorderallowinghim toretirefromservice. TheHighCourtdismissedthewritapplication filed by him. The Fundamental Rule as applicable in the State of Assam came up for consideration. In our opinion, it was quite different. ItisprovidedintheFundamentalRule56(b)asapplicable in the State of Assam that public interest was germane when a Governmentservantretires.UnderRule56(c),aGovernmentservant mayretirebygivingnoticeofnotlessthanthreemonths. Henceit wasobservedthattherewasnoquestionofacceptanceoftherequest for voluntary retirement by the Government when the Government servantexerciseshisrightunderRule56(c). Notonlytherulewas different it was passed on the concession also, however, the ExplanationgiventoRule56intheStateofUttarPradeshmakesit completely different and the provisions in [SECTION] is also quite different. The rules as applicable in Assam for the purpose of retirementbytheGovernmentiscontainedinF.R.56(b)whichrequire retirementinpublicinterestwhereasnosuchriderexistin[SECTION] whenemployeeseekvoluntaryretirement,whereasruleintheStateof Uttar Pradesh both provisions are conjointly read not only the language is different and the explanation makes out the whole difference.
15. TheExplanationattachedtoRule56asapplicableintheStateof Uttar Pradesh makes it clear that when a decision is taken by the authorityunderclause(c)ofRule56,therightofanemployeetoretire cannotbesaidtobeabsoluteasinthecaseofresignation,voluntary retirementiswithretiralbenefitswhereasitmaynotnecessarilyfollow incaseofresignation.ThedecisionundertherulesinU.P.istobe based upon considering the public interest, whether it is a case of retirement by the Government or a case of a Government servant seeking voluntary retirement. The decision rendered in [ENTITY] (supra) is distinguishable and was based on the differentlycouchedrule.TheExplanationaddedmakestheprovisions differentintheStateofUttarPradesh. Thedecisioninthecaseof DineshChandraSangma(supra) cannotbesaidtobeoperativebeing quitedistinguishable.
16. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the respondentsonthedecisionrenderedbythisCourtinB.J.Shelatvs. StateofGujarat,(1978)2SCC202.TheCourtobservedthus:
7.Rule161oftheBombayCivilServicesRulesprovidesfor theretirementofGovernmentservantsbeforeattainingtheage ofsuperannuation.Rule161(1)(aa)provides Notwithstandinganythingcontainedinclause(a):
(1)Anappointingauthorityshall,ifheisofthe opinionthatitisinthepublicinterestsotodo, havetheabsoluterighttoretireanyGovernment servanttowhomclause(a)appliesbygivinghim noticeofnotlessthanthreemonthsinwritingor threemonthspayandallowancesinlieuofsuch notice:
* * * * * Subrule(2)(ii)isasfollows:
Any Government servant to whom clause (a) applies may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the Appointing Authority,retirefromserviceandinanyother case,afterhehasattainedtheageof55years.
ThereisnodisputethattheRuleapplicableisRule161 (2)(ii)andtheappellantisentitledtoretirebygivinganoticeof not lessthan 3monthsafterhehasattainedtheageof55 years.UnderRule161(1)(aa)(1)theappointingauthorityhas anabsoluterighttoretireanyGovernmentservanttowhom clause(a)appliesinpublicinterestbygivinghimnoticeofnot lessthanthreemonthsinwritingorthreemonthspayand allowancesinlieuofsuchnotice.ButtheGovernmentservant has no such absolute right. A right is conferred on the Government servant under [SECTION] to retire by giving not less than three months notice on his attaining the prescribedage.Sucharightissubjecttotheprovisowhichis incorporatedtothe subsectionwhichreadsas follows:
Providedthatitshallbeopentotheappointing authority to withhold permission to retire to a Governmentservantwhoisundersuspension,or against whom departmental proceedings are pendingorcontemplated,andwhoseekstoretire underthissubclause.
Butfortheproviso,aGovernmentservantwouldbeatliberty to'retirebygivingnotlessthanthreemonthsnoticeinwriting to the appointing authority on attaining the prescribed age. This position has been made clear by this Court in [PRECEDENT] the (Assam) Fundamental [SECTION] which confers right on the Government servant to voluntary retire. [SECTION] of the (Assam)FundamentalRulesrunsasfollows:
(c) Any Government servant may, by giving noticeofnotlessthanthreemonthsinwriting totheappropriateauthority,retirefromservice afterhehasattainedtheageoffiftyyearsorhas completed 25 years of service, whichever is earlier.
On a construction of the Rule this Court held that the conditionofservicewhichisenvisagedinRule56(c)givingan option in absolute terms to a Government servant to voluntarilyretirewiththreemonths'previousnotice,afterhe reaches50yearsofageorhascompleted25yearsofservice, cannotbeequatedwithacontractofemploymentasenvisaged inExplanation2toRule119oftheDefenceofIndiaRulesand that [SECTION] is a statutory condition which operated in law withoutreferencetoacontractofemploymentandwhenonce the conditions of Fundamental [SECTION] are fulfilled the Governmentservantmustbeheldtohavelawfullyretired.But fortheprovisotoRule161(2)(ii),thedecisionofthisCourtin thecasecitedabovewouldbeapplicableandtherightwould havebeen absolute.But theproviso hasrestricted the right conferredontheGovernmentservant.Undertheprovisoitis open to the appointing authority to withhold permission to retire to a Government servant when (1) he is under suspension,or(2)againstwhomdepartmentalproceedingsare pendingorcontemplated.Thusthepermissiontoretirecanbe withheld by the appointing authority either when the Government servant is under suspension or against whom departmentalproceedingsarependingorcontemplated.Itwas submittedonbehalfoftheappellantthatadmittedlyhewas notundersuspensiononthedatewhenheattainedtheageof 55yearsandthatnodepartmentalproceedingswerepending orcontemplatedagainsthimasrequiredundertheproviso.No departmental proceeding was pending but on the facts one cannotsaythataproceedingwasnotundercontemplation.
9. Mr. [ENTITY] next referred us to the meaning of the word "withhold" in Webster's Third New International Dictionary which is given as "hold back" and submitted that the permissionshouldbedeemedtohavebeenwithheldifitisnot communicated. We are not able to read the meaning of the word "withhold" as indicating that in the absence of a communication it must be understood as the permission havingbeenwithheld. Therulewhichcameupforconsiderationin [ENTITY]) was the [SECTION] of [ACT]. The [SECTION] provides that appointing authority may retire a Governmentservantinpublicinterestbygivinghimanoticeofnot lessthanthreemonthsorthreemonthspayandallowancesinlieu thereof.Rule161(2)(ii)didnotemploythewordpublicinterestwhen theGovernmentservantseeksvoluntaryretirement. Thishas been addedtotheRuleapplicableintheStateofUttarPradesh. Neither thereisanyprovisionintheaforesaidrulesthatrequiretopassan order to decide an application by a Government servant seeking voluntaryretirementthattooconsideringthepublicinterest. Under the rules, it was open to the appointing authority to withhold the permissiontoretireaGovernmentservantwhoisundersuspensionor againstwhomthedepartmentalenquirywaspendingorcontemplated. TherulesconsideredbythisCourtin[ENTITY])weredifferent anddidnotcontaintheprovisionlikeExplanationasincorporatedin theFundamentalRule56asapplicableintheStateofUttarPradesh. Inthatcontext,thediscussionhasbeenmadeandcannotbeapplied toaruledifferentlycouchedinU.P.
17. ReliancewasalsoplacedonthedecisionrenderedbythisCourt in [PRECEDENT] scopeofthemainprovisionandtheExplanationbecomespartofthe mainsection.Thereisnodisputewiththeaforesaidproposition.The Explanation in rules in question has to be applied to both the situationsascontemplatedinRule56(c)andisapplicabletoboththe exigenciesnotonlywhenGovernmentdecidestoretireanemployee, but also applicable where voluntary retirement is sought by an employee.Itcannotbesaidthatnofurtherrestrictionbyexplanation hasbeenaddedinacasewhereanemployeehasdecidedtoobtain voluntaryretirement. Thepublicinterestistheprimeconsideration on which authority has to decide such a prayer as per the rules applicableintheStateofUttarPradesh.
18. Itwasalsourgedthatprinciplesofcertaintyofruleoflaware squarelyapplicableinthepresentcase.Reliancehasbeenplacedon thedecisionof StateofHaryanavs.S.K.Singhal, (1999)4SCC293. ThisCourtconsideredRule5.32(b)ofthePunjabCivilServicesRules andobservedthus:
6. Thesaidrule 5.32(B)ofthePunjab CivilServiceRules, (Vol.II)readsasfollows:
[SECTION](1) At any time a government employeehascompletedtwentyyearsqualifying service,hemay,bygivingnoticeofnotlessthan three months in writing to the appointing authority retire from service. However, a government employee may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of less than three months giving reason therefor.Onreceiptofarequest,theappointing authority may consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailmentoftheperiodofnoticewillnotcause anyadministrativeinconvenience,theappointing authoritymayrelaxtherequirementofnoticeof three months on the condition that the government employee shall not apply for commutationofapartofhispensionbeforethe expiryoftheperiodofnoticeofthreemonths.
(2)Thenoticeofvoluntaryretirementgivenunder [SECTION] shall require acceptance by the appointing authority subject to Rule 2.2, of PunjabCivilServicesRulesVol.II:
Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in [SECTION] supra, the retirement shallbecomeeffectivefromthedateofexpiryof thesaidperiod:
Provided further that before a government employee gives notice of voluntary retirement with reference to [SECTION] he should satisfy himself by means of a reference to the appropriate authority that he has, in fact, completed twenty years service qualifying for pension.
8. It will be noticed that under [SECTION], a government employee who has completed 20 years of qualifying service may,bygivingnoticeofnotlessthan3monthsinwritingto theappointingauthority,retirefromservice.Thereisprovision forrequestingforrelaxationofthenoticeperiodof3months and for consideration thereof. As to what the appointing authorityistodoisgovernedsquarelybysubrule(2).That subrule states that the notice of voluntary retirement given undersubrule(1)"shall"requireacceptancebytheappointing authoritysubjecttoRule2.2ofthePunjabCivilServicesRules (Vol.II).AcceptanceoftherequestissubjecttoRule2.2ofthe Rules.But theprovisotosubrule [SECTION] specifiedinsubrule(1),theretirementshallbecomeeffective fromthedateofexpiryoftheperiod.Therefore,itisclearthat ifapersonhascompleted20yearsqualifyingserviceandhas givenanoticeunderRule5.32(B)of3months(orifhisrequest forrelaxationof3monthsisaccepted),thentherequest"shall"
beacceptedsubjecttoinvokingtheprovisionofRule2.2ofthe PunjabCivilServicesRules(Vol.II).UnderRule2.2,the"future goodconduct"ofanemployeeisanimpliedconditionofevery grantofpension.Inotherwords,whatallitmeansisthateven if the acceptance of the voluntary retirement is mandatory, thereisanobligationcastontheretiredemployeetomaintain good conduct after such retirement. The words "future good conduct"meangoodconductafterretirement.Iftheemployee doesnotcontinuetomaintaingoodconductafterretirement, thentheGovernmentcanwithholdorwithdrawthepensionor apartofitincaseheisconvictedofseriouscrimeorincase hebeguiltyofgravemisconduct.Suchadecisiontowithhold orwithdrawthewholeorpartofpensionwouldbefinaland conclusive,thatistosay,sofarasthegovernmentalhierarchy isconcerned.ItwillbenoticedthatRule2.2doesnotobstruct thevoluntaryretirementtocomeintoforceautomaticallyon the expiry of 3 months and it only enables withdrawal or withholding of pension subject to certain conditions, to a retiredemployee.
9. The employment of government servants is governed by rules. These rules provide a particular age as the age of superannuation.Nonetheless,therulesconferarightonthe Governmenttocompulsorilyretireanemployeebeforetheage of superannuation provided the employee has reached a particularageorhascompletedaparticularnumberofyears ofqualifyingserviceincaseitisfoundthathisservicehasnot beenfoundtobesatisfactory.Therulesalsoprovidethatan employeewhohascompletedthesaidnumberofyearsinhis ageorwhohascompletedtheprescribednumberofyearsof qualifyingservicecouldgivenoticeof,say,threemonthsthat hewouldvoluntarilyretireontheexpiryofthesaidperiodof three months. Some Rules are couched in language which resultsinanautomaticretirementoftheemployeeuponexpiry oftheperiodspecifiedintheemployee'snotice.Ontheother hand,certainrulesinsomeotherdepartmentsarecouchedin language which makes it clear that even upon expiryofthe periodspecifiedinthenotice,theretirementisnotautomatic andanexpressordergrantingpermissionisrequiredandhas tobecommunicated.Therelationshipofmasterandservantin thelattertypeofrulescontinuesaftertheperiodspecifiedin the notice till such acceptance is communicated; refusal of permissioncouldalsobecommunicatedafter3monthsand the employee continues to be in service. Cases like Dinesh ChandraSangmav.StateofAssam,(1977)4SCC441,[ENTITY] v. State of Gujarat, (1978) 2 SCC 202 and [PRECEDENT],thevoluntaryretirementtakeseffectautomaticallyas noorderofrefusalispassedwithinthenoticeperiod.Onthe [PRECEDENT] 4 SCC 584 belongs to the second category where the byelaws were interpretedasnotgivinganoption"toretire"butonlyprovided alimitedrightto"seek"retirementtherebyimplyingtheneed foraconsentoftheemployereveniftheperiodofthenotice has elapsed. We shall refer to these two categories in some detail.
13. Thus,fromtheaforesaidthreedecisionsitisclearthat iftherighttovoluntarilyretirementisconferredinabsolute terms as in [ENTITY] case by the relevant rulesandthereisnoprovisioninrulestowithholdpermission in certaincontingenciesthe voluntaryretirement comesinto effectautomaticallyontheexpiryoftheperiodspecifiedinthe notice. If, however, as in [ENTITY] case and as in [ENTITY],theconcernedauthorityisempoweredto withholdpermissiontoretireifcertainconditionsexist,viz.,in case the employee is under suspension or in case a departmentalenquiryispendingoriscontemplated,themere pendency of the suspension or departmental enquiry or its contemplation does not result in the notice for voluntary retirement not coming into effect on expiry of the period specified. What is further needed is that the concerned authority concerned must pass a positive order withholding permissiontoretireandmustalsocommunicatethesameto the employee as stated in [ENTITY] case and in [ENTITY] case before the expiry of the notice period. Consequently, there is no requirement of an order of acceptanceofthenoticetobecommunicatedtotheemployee nor can it be said that noncommunication of acceptance shouldbetreatedasamountingtowithholdingofpermission.
18. In the case before us [SECTION] contemplates a notice to retire and not a request seeking permissiontoretire.Thefurther"request"contemplatedbythe subrule is only for seeking exemption from the 3 months period.Theprovisotosubrule(2)makesapositiveprovision that"wheretheappointingauthoritydoesnotrefusetogrant thepermissionforretirementbeforetheexpiryoftheperiod specifiedinSubrule(1),theretirementshallbecomeeffective fromthedateofexpiryofthesaidperiod.Thecasebeforeus stands on a stronger footing than [ENTITY] case so far asthe employee is concerned. As already stated [ACT] situation of withholding or withdrawing pension to a person whohasalreadyretired.
19. [SECTION] of [ACT] clearly provide that where the appointingauthoritydoesnotrefusetograntthepermissiontoretire before the expiry of the period in [SECTION], the retirement shall becomeeffectivefromthedateoftheexpiryofthesaiddate.Thereis no such provision of notice becoming effective from the date of the expiry of the period in the Fundamental Rules as applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh. In the context of the proviso, the notice becomeseffectivefromthedateofexpiryoftheperiod,inthatcontext thisCourthasmadeobservationsintheaforesaiddictumthatRule 2.2 does not obstruct the voluntary retirement to come into force automaticallyontheexpiryofthreemonths.
20. Inthe StateofHaryana(supra),thisCourtalsoobservedthat somerulesarecouchedinlanguage,whichresultsinanautomatic retirementoftheemployeeupontheexpiryoftheperiodspecifiedin theemployeesnotice.Ontheotherhand,certainrulesinsomeother departmentsarecouchedinthelanguagewhichmakesitclearthat evenuponexpiryoftheperiodspecifiedinthenotice,theretirementis notautomaticandanexpressordergrantingpermissionisrequired andhastobecommunicated.Therelationshipofmasterandservant inthelattertypeofrulescontinuesaftertheperiodspecifiedinthe notice till such acceptance is communicated and the refusal of permissioncouldalsobecommunicatedafterthreemonthsandthe employee continues to be in service. It is the aforesaid later observationsmadebythisCourt,whicharesquarelyapplicabletothe ruleinquestionasapplicableintheStateofUttarPradesh.
21. In [PRECEDENT], the Court considered the language employed in the applicable byelaws. It was observed that if the permission for voluntary retirementisnotgranted,theemployeewouldnotbeabletoretire. TheCourtobserved:
8.Clause(2)ofthebyelawinteraliaprovidesforvoluntary retirement from service of HPMC on completion of25 years serviceoronattainingtheageof50yearswhicheverisearlier. Theemployee,however,hasarighttomakearequestinthat behalf and his request would become effective only if he is 'permitted' to retire. The words "may be permitted at his request"clearlyindicatethatthesaidclausedoesnotconfer ontheemployeea right to retireoncompletionofeither 25 yearsserviceoronattainingtheageof50years.Itconferson theemployeearighttomakearequesttopermithimtoretire. Obviously, if request is not accepted and permission is not grantedtheemployeewillnotbeabletoretireasdesiredby him.Para(5)ofthebyelawisinthenatureofanexceptionto para(2)andpermitstheemployeewhohasnotcompleted25 years service or has attained 50 years of age to seek retirementifhehascompleted20yearssatisfactoryservice. Hecando sobygivingthree months' notice in writing.The contentionofthelearnedCounselforHPMCwasthatthough para5ofthebyelawrelaxestheconditionsprescribedbypara (2),therelaxationisonlywithrespecttotheperiodofservice and attainment of age of 50 years and it cannot be read to mean that the requirement of permission is dispensed with.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as para 5 opens with the words "Notwithstandingtheprovisionunderpara(2)"andthewords "may be permitted at his request" are absent that would meanthattheemployeehasarighttoretireaftergivingthree months' notice and no acceptance of such a request is necessary.Wecannotagreewiththeinterpretationcanvassed bylearnedcounselfortherespondent.Thebyelawhastobe read as a whole. Para (2) thereof confers a right on the employeetorequestforvoluntaryretirementoncompletionof 25yearsserviceoronattainingtheageof50years,buthis desirewouldmaterialiseonlyifheispermittedtoretireand not otherwise. Ordinarily, in a matter like this an employee whohasputinlessnumberofyearsofservicewouldnotbeon a better fooling than the employee who has put in longer service.Itcouldnothavebeentheintentionoftherulemaking authority while framing para 5 of the byelaw to confer on such an employee a better and a larger right to retire after giving three months' notice in writing. The words "seek retirement"inpara5indicatethattherightwhichisconferred byitisnottherighttoretirebutarighttoaskforretirement. The word "seek" implies a request by the employee and correspondingacceptanceorpermissionbyHPMC.Therefore, there cannot be automaticretirement orsnapping ofservice relationshiponexpiryofthreemonths'period.
22. In [PRECEDENT], a question arose of voluntary retirement from service which was not acceded to by the competent authority by accordingapproval.ThemattertravelledtothisCourt.Itwasheldthat voluntaryretirementdidnotcomeintoforce.TheCourtobserved:
33. There is nothing to indicate in [SECTION] that if employerdecidestowithholdapprovalofvoluntaryretirement, such refusal of approval must be communicated to the petitionerduringtheperiodofnotice.Trueitisthatnoticeof threemonthsforvoluntaryretirement given byanemployee coveredbyClause(b)remainsvalidevenifnocommunication is received within the notice period but it becomes effective onlyonitsapprovalbythecompetentauthority.Asamatterof fact,thisseemstohavebeenunderstoodbyboththeparties.
34. The appellant issued a notice of voluntary retirement underRegulation12(b)on3092005.Thenoticeperiodwasto expireon 31122005.Itisanadmittedpositionthatthe competent authority neither gave an approval nor indicated disapprovaltotheappellantwithinthenoticeperiodofthree months. The employee never treated that there has been cessationofemploymentontheexpiryofthreemonthsnotice periodinasmuchashecontinuedtoattendhisdutiesafter31 122005 until 3062006. It is only by his letter dated 86 2006 that the appellant requested the respondent to relieve himintermsofhisnoticedated3092005by3062006and hestoppedattendingworkfrom172006.Theletterdated8 62006doesnotmakeanymaterialdifferenceasthefactof the matter is that after the expiry of the notice period, the appellant continued to attend his duties for many months thereafter.
35. By the letter dated 1592006 the respondent communicated to the appellant that his application for voluntary retirement under Service [SECTION](b) has not beenaccededtobythecompetentauthority.Sincethenotice forvoluntaryretirementbyanemployeewhohasnotattained 55 years but has completed 20 years of continuous service, undertheprovisoappendedtoRegulation12(b),issubjectto approval by the competent authority and that approval was not granted, the voluntary retirement of the appellant never cameintoeffect.
23. [PRECEDENT] whether notice for voluntary retirement would come into effect automatically.Therehastobeastipulationintheschemeproviding thatevenwithoutacceptanceofhisapplication,itwouldbedeemed thattheapplicationforvoluntaryretirementhadbeenaccepted.There isnosuchprovisionintherulesinquestion.In [ENTITY]), thisCourtobserved:
13.Itiswellestablishedthatavoluntaryretirementscheme introducedbyacompany,doesnotentitleanemployeeasa matter of right to the benefits of the Scheme. Whether an employeeshouldbeallowedtoretireintermsoftheschemeis adecisionwhichcanonlybetakenbytheemployercompany, exceptincaseswheretheschemeitselfprovidesforretirement to take effect when the notice period comes to an end. A voluntary retirement scheme introduced by a company is essentially a part of the company's desire to weed out the deadwood.
14. The petitioner's contention that his application for voluntary retirement came into effect on the expiry of the period of notice given by him must fail, since there was no suchstipulationintheschemethatevenwithoutacceptance of his application it would be deemed that the petitioner's voluntaryretirementapplicationhadbeenaccepted.Oncethat is not accepted, the entire caseofthepetitioner fallsto the ground.ThedecisioninTekChandcase(2001)3SCC290will not,therefore,haveanyapplicationtothefactsofthiscase, particularly when the petitioner's application for voluntary retirementhadnotbeenacceptedandhehadbeenaskedto rejoin his services. The petitioner was fully aware of this position as he continued to apply for leave after the notice periodwasover.
24. DecisioninTekChandvs.[CASE NUMBER] relieduponbytherespondents.ThisCourtconsideredRule48A(2)of theCentralCivilServices(Pension)Rules,1972,provisotosaidrule containedaprovisionwheretheappointingauthoritydidnotrefuseto grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specifiedinthesaidnotice,theretirementshallbecomeeffectivefrom the date of expiry of the said period. The relevant observations are extractedhereunder:
31.Itisnotdisputedthattheappointingauthoritydidnot refusetograntthepermissionforretirementbeforeexpiryof the period specified in the said application dated 5.12.1994 givenbyNikkaRam.Further,nocommunicationwhatsoever wasmadetohimwithinthesaidperiod.Duringthecourseof theargumentbeforetheHighCourt,thelearnedcounselfor the parties referred to [SECTION] of the Rules, of course, placing their own interpretation. Since the said Rule is materialandhasbearingonthequestiontobedetermined,it isextractedbelow:
"48A. Retirement on completion of 20 years qualifying service. (1) At any time after a government servant has completed twenty years' qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not lessthanthreemonthsinwritingtotheappointing authority,retirefromservice:
Provided that this subrule shall not apply to a governmentservant,includingscientistortechnical expertwhois
(i)onassignmentsundertheIndianTechnicaland Economic Cooperation (ITEC) Programme of the Ministry of External Affairs and other aid programmes.
(ii) posted abroad in foreignbased offices of the Ministries/Departments.
(iii) on a specific contract assignment to a foreign Government, unless, after having been transferred toIndia,hehasresumedthechargeofthepostin Indiaandservedforaperiodofnotlessthanone year.
(2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under [SECTION] shall require acceptance by the appointingauthority:
Provided that wheretheappointingauthority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement beforetheexpiryoftheperiodspecifiedinthesaid notice, the retirement shall become effective from thedateofexpiryofthesaidperiod.
33.Itisclearfromsubrule(2)oftheRulethattheappointing authority is required to accept the notice of voluntary retirement given under [SECTION]. It is open to the appointing authority to refuse also, on whatever grounds availabletoit,butsuchrefusalhastobebeforetheexpiryof theperiodspecifiedinthenotice.Theprovisotosubrule(2)is clearandcertaininitsterms.Iftheappointingauthoritydoes not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiryoftheperiodspecifiedinthesaidnotice,theretirement soughtforbecomeseffectivefromthedateofexpiryofthesaid period.Inthiscase,admittedly,theappointingauthoritydid notrefusetograntthepermissionforretirementtoNikkaRam before the expiry of the period specified in the notice dated 5.12.1994. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent argued that the acceptance of voluntary retirement by appointingauthorityinallcasesismandatory.Intheabsence ofsuchexpressacceptancethegovernmentservantcontinues tobeinservice.Insupportofthissubmission,hedrew our attention to [SECTION] of Fundamental Rules. He also submittedthatacceptancemaybeonalaterdate,thatis,even aftertheexpiryoftheperiodspecifiedinthenoticeandthe retirement could be effective from the date specified in the notice.Sincetheprovisotosubrule(2)ofRule48Aisclearin itselfandthesaidRule48Aisselfcontained,inouropinion, itisunnecessarytolooktootherprovisions,moresointhe light of law laid down by this Court. An argument that acceptancecanbeevenlongafterthedateoftheexpiryofthe periodspecifiedinthenoticeandthatthevoluntaryretirement maybecomeeffectivefromthedatespecifiedinthenotice,will leadtoanomaloussituation.Takeacase,ifanapplicationfor voluntaryretirementisacceptedfewyearslaterfromthedate specified in the notice and voluntary retirement becomes operative from the date of expiry of the notice period itself, what would be the position or status of such a government servantduringtheperiodfromthedateofexpiryofthenotice perioduptothedateofacceptanceofthevoluntaryretirement bytheappointingauthority?Oneeithercontinuesinserviceor does not continue in service. It cannot be both that the voluntaryretirementcouldbeeffectivefromthedateofexpiry oftheperiodmentionedinthenoticeandstillaGovernment servantcouldcontinueinservicetillthevoluntaryretirement is accepted. The [SECTION] of the Rulesdoesnotadmitsuchsituation.
35.Inourview,thisjudgmentfullysupportsthecontention urged on behalf of the appellant in this regard. In this judgment,itisobservedthattherearethreecategoriesofrules relatingtoseekingofvoluntaryretirementafternotice.Inthe first category, voluntary retirement automatically comes into forceonexpiryofnoticeperiod.Inthesecondcategoryalso, retirementcomesintoforceunlessanorderispassedduring noticeperiodwithholdingpermissiontoretireandinthethird categoryvoluntaryretirementdoesnotcomeintoforceunless permissiontothiseffectisgrantedbythecompetentauthority.
In such a case, refusal of permission can be communicated evenaftertheexpiryofthenoticeperiod.Italldependsupon the relevant rules. In the case decided, the relevant Rule requiredacceptanceofnoticebyappointingauthorityandthe proviso to the Rule further laid down that retirement shall comeintoforceautomaticallyiftheappointingauthoritydid not refuse permission during the notice period. Refusal was notcommunicatedtotherespondentduringthenoticeperiod andtheCourtheldthatvoluntaryretirementcameintoforce onexpiryofthenoticeperiodandsubsequentorderconveyed tohimthathecouldnotbedeemedtohavevoluntaryretired hadnoeffect.Thepresentcaseisalmostidenticaltotheone decidedbythisCourtintheaforesaiddecision. Therulewhichcameupforconsiderationwasentirelydifferent. Thereisnoprovisioncontainedinruleinquestioninthecaseathand like the proviso to [SECTION] referred to above due to which the retirementshallbecomeeffectivefromthedateofexpiryofperiodof noticeincasethesamewasnotrefused.
25. Inourconsideredopinion,underRule56asapplicableinthe StateofUttarPradesh,noticeofvoluntaryretirementdoesnotcome into effect automatically on the expiry of the three months period. Undertheruleinquestion,theappointingauthorityhastoacceptthe notice for voluntary retirement or it can be refused on permissible grounds.
26. Inouropinion,theRule56(c)doesnotfallinthecategorywhere there is an absolute right on the employee to seek voluntary retirement. Inviewoftheaforesaiddictumandwhatisheldbythis Court,wefindthattheprayermadetomakeareferencetoalarger Bench, in case this Court does not follow the earlier decision is entirelydevoidofmeritasonthebasisofwhathasbeenheldbythis Courtintheearlierdecisions,wehavearrivedattheconclusion.This Courthasauthoritativelylaiddownthelawumpteennumberoftime.
27. Reliancehasalsobeenplacedonbehalfofrespondentsonthe [PRECEDENT] inwhichthisCourtobservedthatlawshouldnotbeunsettledunless there are compelling reasons. There is no dispute that the said proposition has already been held. There is no question of law unsettling the law but is of its application, which unfortunately appearsasagainsttheinterestsoftherespondentsinviewoflanguage employedintheruleinquestion.Anattemptinvainhasbeenmade by the respondents to wriggle out of the clutches of the various decisionsbyraisingtheaforesaidargument.
28. It was also urged that the [SECTION] does not require the employeetogivereasonsforvoluntaryretirement. Nodoubtunder Rule56(c)thereisnorequirementforanemployeetogiveanyreason, however,whileconsideringtheprayer,theappointingauthorityhasto keep in mind the public interest as provided in the Explanation attachedtoF.R.56.
29. Learned counsel also urged that outside the proviso to [SECTION], there is no general rightof appointing authorityto reject the noticeofvoluntaryretirementofanemployeeonthegroundofpublic interest. For this purpose, threefold submission has been made. Firstly, that the principle of liberty under the [ACT] and specificallyPartIIIofthe[ACT]requiresthatanyrestrictionon freedomandlibertymusthavethesanctionofthelawandthatlaw must be just, fair and reasonable. Presently, there is no law as enactedunderArticle309ofthe[ACT]. Secondly,therightof GovernmentemployeeandthatoftheGovernmentaredelineatedin termsofFundamentalRulesgoverningStateGovernmentemployees. Thus,ifanyFundamentalRulesdonotrestrictthegenerallibertyof anemployeeordonotempowertheemployertoactinacertainway, an action otherwise would be impermissible. For this purpose, reliance has been placed on [PRECEDENT]
27. Inthisconnection,itisnecessarytoemphasisethatthe rulemaking authority contemplated by [SECTION] cannot be validlyexercisedsoastocurtailoraffecttherightsguaranteed topublicservantsunderArt.311(1).Art.311(1)isintendedto afford a sense of security to public servants who are substantivelyappointedtoapermanent postandoneofthe principal benefits which they are entitled to expect is the benefitofpensionafterrenderingpublicservicefortheperiod prescribedbytheRules.Itwould,wethink,notbelegitimate tocontendthattherighttoearnapensiontowhichaservant substantivelyappointedtoapermanentpostisentitledcanbe curtailedbyRulesframedunderArt.309soastomakethe saidrighteitherineffectiveorillusory.OncethescopeofArt.
311(1)and(2)isdulydetermined,itmustbeheldthatnoRule framedunderArt.309cantrespassontherightsguaranteed byArt.311.Thispositionisofbasicimportanceandmustbe borneinmindindealingwiththecontroversyinthepresent appeals.
30. TherelianceplacedonMotiRamDeka(supra)isofnoavailasit hasnoapplicationtotheinstantcaseasnorightconferredbyArticle 311 of the [ACT] can be said to have been taken away and serviceruledehorsofitcanprovidefortheconceptofpublicinterest.
31. ThereisnodoubtaboutitthatRule56(d)providesthatwherea disciplinary enquiry is pending or contemplated and in the case of contemplated disciplinary enquiry, the Government servant shall be informedbeforetheexpiryofnoticethatithasnotbeenaccepted.The provisotoRule56(d)hasnoapplicationwhereadisciplinaryenquiry is not contemplated or pending. When the proviso itself is not applicable,innocaseitwilldilutetheprovisionsofExplanationwith respecttoexigenciesmentionedinclause(c)ofRule56.
32. The submission made upon principle of liberty and its curtailment,thelawmustbejust,fairandreasonablecanalsonotbe acceptedastheFundamentalRulesarestatutoryrulesandhavebeen madebytheGovernorundersection241(2)(b)oftheGovernmentof IndiaAct,1935andprovisionsofruleinquestioncannotbesaidtobe unfair,unreasonableandoppressive.
33. The concept of liberty not to serve when the public interest requires cannot be attracted as retirement which carries pecuniary benefitscanbesubjecttocertainriders. Thegeneralpublichasthe right to obtain treatment from super skilled specialists, not second rates. In [PRECEDENT], the Courtobservedthus:
"44. Secondly, and moreimportantly, it is difficultto denounce or renounce the merit criterion when the selectionisforpostgraduateorpostdoctoralcourses in specialised subjects. To sympathise mawkishly with the weaker sections by selecting substandard candidates,istopunishsocietyasawholebydenying theprospectofexcellencesayinhospitalservice.Even thepoorest,whenstrickenbycriticalillness,needsthe attention of superskilled specialists, not humdrum secondrates. So it is that relaxation on merit, by overruling equality and quality altogether, is a social riskwherethestageispostgraduateorpostdoctoral.
34. The concept of public interest can also be invoked by the Governmentwhenvoluntaryretirementsoughtbyanemployee,would beagainstthepublicinterest. Theprovisionscannotbesaidtobe violativeofanyoftherights.Thereisalreadypaucityofthedoctorsas observed by the High Court, the system cannot be left without competentseniorpersonsandparticularly,theHighCourthasitself observedthatdoctorsarenotbeingattractedtojoinservicesandthere is an existing scarcity of the doctors. Poorest of the poor obtain treatmentattheGovernmenthospitals. They cannot beputatthe peril,evenwhencertaindoctorsarepostedagainsttheadministrative posts.Itisnotthattheyhavebeenpostedagainsttheirseniorityorto the other cadre. Somebody has to man these administrative posts also,whichareabsolutelynecessarytorunthemedicalserviceswhich arepartandparceloftherighttolifeitself.Intheinstantcase,where therightofthepublicareinvolvedinobtainingtreatment,theState GovernmenthastakenadecisionasperExplanationstodeclinethe prayer for voluntary retirement considering the public interest. It cannotbesaidthatStatehascommittedanyillegalityoritsdecision suffersfromanyviceofarbitrariness.
35. ThedecisionoftheGovernmentcatertotheneedsofthehuman life and carry the objectives of public interest. The respondents are claimingtherighttoretireunderPartIIIofthe[ACT]suchright cannotbesupremethan rightto life.Ithastobeinterpretedalong withtherightsoftheStateGovernmentinPartIVofthe[ACT] asitisobligatoryupontheStateGovernmenttomakeanendeavour underArticle47tolookaftertheprovisionsforhealthandnutrition. ThefundamentaldutiesitselfareenshrinedunderArticle51(A)which requireobservance. TherightunderArticle19(1)(g)issubjecttothe interestofthegeneralpublicandonceservicehasbeenjoined,the right can only be exercised as per rules and not otherwise. Such conditions of service made in public interest cannot be said to be illegalorarbitraryortakingawaytherightofliberty.Theprovisions oftheruleinquestioncannotbesaidtobeagainstthe[ACT]al provisions. Incaseofvoluntaryretirement,gratuity,pensions,and otherduesetc.arepayabletotheemployeeinaccordancewithrules andwhenthereisarequirementoftheservicesofanemployee,the appointingauthoritymayexerciseitsrightnottoaccepttheprayerfor voluntaryretirement.Incaseallthedoctorsarepermittedtoretire,in thatsituation,therewouldbeachaosandnodoctorwouldbeleftin theGovernmenthospitals,whichwouldbeagainsttheconceptofthe welfarestateandinjurioustopublicinterest.Inthecaseofvoluntary retirement,thereisaprovisioninRule56thataGovernmentservant maybeextendedbenefitofanadditionalperiodoffiveyearsthenan actualperiodofservicerendered byhimthere is thecorresponding obligationtoserveindireneed.
36. ItwasurgedthatintheStateofTamilNadu,Governmenthas amendedtherulesnottoretireGovernmentdoctors,ifthereisany scarcityofdoctorsitisopentotheGovernmentofUttarPradeshto amenditsrules.InIndia,theGovernmentsponsoredMedicalServices tocatertotheneedsofpoorestofthepoorandhavenotsotherwise thereisthecommercialisationofthecharitablemedicalprofession.In otherStatestoo,itisseensometimethatwhenadoctoristransferred fromoneplacetoanother,thedoctorforwardsapplicationresigning fromthepostorseeksvoluntaryretirementashedoesnotwantto moveoutandleavehislucrativeprivatepracticeandjoinstheduty onlywhenheobtainspostingbacktotheplaceofhischoice.Insuch ascenariopeoplecannotbedeprivedoftheservicesofgooddoctors.In viewofthescarcityofthedoctorsandtheunfortunateprivatisation and commercialisation of the noble medical profession, for maintainingtheefficiencyoftheStateMedicalServices,thedecision takenbytheGovernmentispermissibleasperrulesandcannotbe interferedwith.Unfortunately,theHighCourthasgiventheaforesaid observationspointingouttheshortageofspecialiseddoctorsandat thesametimehasultimatelydecidedagainsttheStateGovernment onwronginterpretationwithoutconsideringtheExplanationattached toRule56applicableintheStateofUttarPradesh.Theprefacegiven bytheHighCourtisjustoppositetoitsconclusion. TheHighCourt ought to have rejected and not to allow the prayer of voluntary retirementmadebythedoctors.
37. Itwasurgedthatsomeofthedoctorssufferedfromneckpain etc.assuchprayeroughttohavebeenacceptedbuttheyhavenot givenanysuchseriousailmentswhichmaymaketheirfunctioningin thehospitaldifficultinanymannerwhatsoever. Itwasthepretext that was used by them to seek voluntary retirement. It is for the Governmenttoconsidertheefficacy.Doctorstoohaverightunderthe [ACT], they can continue in servicesunfetteredbysuchailments.
38. UnderArticle47itisthedutyoftheStatetoimprovethepublic health,whichisaprimarydutyundertheDirectivePrinciplesofthe State Policy and the statutory expression which may be enforced. WhenweconsiderArticle51AcontainingFundamentalDuties,itisa dutyofeverycitizenunderArticle51A(g)tohavecompassionforliving creaturesandtohavehumanismisalsocontemplatedunderArticle 51A(h)andtostrivetowardsexcellenceinallspheresofindividualand collectiveactivitysothatthenationconstantlyrisestohigherlevelsof endeavoursandachievement.Itcannotbedonebydeprivingpoorest ofthepooressentialmedicalservicesandtoleavethematthemercy ofdoctors.TherecannotbeanexodusfromtheGovernmentMedical Services at large, which is being projected in the instant case, definitelythiscannotbepermittedtohappenwithinfourcornersof lawasithastobelivingorganismandhastoliveuptotheessence and spirit of constitution and cannot ignore and overlook needs of pooreststrataofthesociety.
39. It was urged that the State Government is discriminating between the doctors in the Provincial Medical Services with the doctors workingin theStateowned Hospitals andMedical Colleges. In the Medical Colleges etc. doctors are being permitted to retire. Instancesof7doctorshavebeengiven,whowerepermittedtoretirein 2016,2017and2018.DoctorsofMedicalCollegesareonadifferent footing than that of Provincial Medical Services. Even otherwise in view of the scarcity of the doctors, no ground of equality can be claimedandthedoctorsofdifferentservicesformdifferentclass,apart fromthatthereisnoconceptofnegativeequalitythattooagainstthe publicinterest. Incase,suchapleaisallowed,nonemaybeleftto servepublicatlarge.
40. ThereareseveraldecisionsoftheHighCourt,namely, [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT] were cited to show that the decision in [ENTITY] (supra)hadbeenfollowed.Wehaveconsideredtheaforesaiddecisions andwefindthatitwoulddependupontheschemeoftheRules.Each andeveryjudgmenthastobeconsideredinthelightoftheprovisions which came up for consideration and question it has decided, languageemployedintherules,anditcannotbesaidtobeofgeneral application as already observed by this Court in State of Haryana (supra).
41. It was also contended that the State of Uttar Pradesh may amendrules,inouropinionthereisnosuchnecessityinviewofthe ExplanationtheStatehasalreadyamendeditsrulessoastoenableit to pass an order with respect to retirement whether it is at the instanceoftheGovernmentorattheinstanceoftheemployeeforboth thepublicinterestisgermane.
42. Thesubmissionwasalsomadewithrespecttotheimpositionof moratoriumperiodofoneyearonretirementandthatthereshouldbe therecruitmentofthedoctorsandthereafteracceptanceofvoluntary retirementbytheState. Wedonotproposetoventureintoit. The action of the State Government was appropriate in disallowing the prayer seeking voluntary retirement. The Government may fill the vacancies if any. But that would not bringdoctors of experience at seniorlevelandexodusofdoctorscannotbepermittedtoweakenthe services when the public interest requires to serve for the sake of efficient medical profession and fulfil Directive Principles of State Policy once they found statutory expression in the rules cannot be made mockery. When services are required, denial of voluntary retirementispermissibleunder theRulesapplicable intheStateof UttarPradesh.
43. Inviewoftheabove,weallowthecivilappealsandherebyset aside theimpugnedjudgmentand orderpassedbytheHigh Court. Theapplicationsforinterventionandtoimpleadstandallowed.
J. ([ENTITY]) J. ([ENTITY]) August21,2018.
NewDelhi.