IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9909 of 2008 ***** ARJUN KUMAR, Son of Sri Ram Chandra Prasad, at present residing at 20/B, Laxmi Residency, Gaikwad Nagar, Aundh, Pune --------------------- Petitioner Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & The State of Bihar through Secretary, Department of Environment and Forest, Govt. of Bihar, Patna ------------------- Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh and Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Advocates. For the State:- Mrs. Neelu Agrawal, G.A. (10), and Ms. Nirmala Kumari, JC to GA 10. For the Union of India:- Mr. Sudhir Singh, SSC and Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, C.G.C. 8. 23.12.2008. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner, an Officer of the Indian Forest Service, after completing 25 years of service applied for voluntary retirement and thereupon claimed retrial benefits. That was denied on the ground that the request contained in the application has not been accepted. Accordingly, petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The right to exercise such right and to receive retrial benefits have been incorporated in the All India Services (Death-cum- Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as - 2 - `the Rules’). Rule 16(2A) of the said Rules made the right of the service holder to voluntarily retire conditional upon acceptance of the request for retirement by the State Government. In that case, the right to seek voluntary retirement accrues upon completion of 20 years of qualifying service with a further right to fix the date of retirement on any day thereafter. Rule 16(2) of the said Rules provides that an Officer may voluntarily retire from service on the date on which he completes 30 years of qualifying service or on the date on which such member attains 50 years of age and, at the same time, entitles fixation of the date of retirement on any day thereafter by specifying the same in the notice. The only difference in between Rule 16(2) and Rule 16(2A) is that in the latter case, retirement depends upon acceptance; whereas in the earlier case, it is the desire of the member, as indicated in the notice. Though the petitioner rendered services for 25 years, but as on the date of the notice of retirement the petitioner had attained 50 years of age. Petitioner was, therefore, governed by Rule 16(2) of the said Rules. There - 3 - was no requirement of acceptance of the same. If the petitioner was entitled to retire at his choice in terms of Rule 16(2), there is no dispute that the petitioner was entitled to retirement benefits in terms of the said Rules. Interpretation of Rule 16(2) of the Rules was thus the core question argued by the parties before the Tribunal. While reading Rule 16(2), the Tribunal read that a member of the service, who has completed 30 years of qualifying service on the date on which such a member attains 50 years of age, was entitled to take advantage of the said Rules. Petitioner contended that the word “On”, read by the Tribunal in Rule 16(2) of the said Rules should be read as “Or”. In the writ petition, the petitioner has requested us to read the Rule as such. An effort was made by this Court to obtain the original Notification, as was published, since there was a controversy whether the word in question should be “On” or should be “Or”. However, the same could not be gathered. A look at the provision would make it absolutely clear that the word “On” does not fit. The same should either be “Or” or the same should be “And”. However, even if the word “On” is replaced by the word “And”, the same - 4 - would not convey a reasonable meaning to the Rule, for in such circumstances the date of completion of 30 years of qualifying service should coincide with the date of attaining 50 years of age. The only logical conclusion would, therefore, be that the word “On” is “Or”. The learned counsel for the State has very fairly submitted that she has obtained from the Website of the Central Government a copy of the said Rules, which suggests that the word is “Or” and not “On”. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has brought on record the information received by his client in exercise of his right acknowledged by the Right to Information Act, which also suggests that the word is “Or” and not “On”. The learned counsel for the Central Government has also submitted that the word is “Or” and not “On”. In the circumstances, we allow the writ petition and quash the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal under challenge in this writ petition. Inasmuch, for the reasons indicated above, the conclusion would be that the petitioner retired from service in terms of Rule 16(2) of the said Rules, and such retirement - 5 - was not dependent upon acceptance of the notice of the petitioner by the State Government, the petitioner is entitled to retrial benefits in terms of the said Rules and let the same be settled and paid to him at an early date. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. dk ( Barin Ghosh, J. ) ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. )