CW 2246/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.2246/2006 Nathu Lal Meena Versus State & (3) Ors. Date of Order ::: 19/05/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. PK Sharma, for petitioner Mr. JK Agrawal, Dy.GA, for respondents Instant petition has been filed by petitioner with the grievance that despite expiry of three months as provided U/r 50(1) of Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996, (“Rules, 1996”) upon his application submitted seeking voluntary retirement, since no orders were passed, therefore, stood retired from service but his retiral dues to which he is entitled for have not been paid so far. Petitioner joined service as Beldar on 01/04/78 in Irrigation Department and on completion of two years' service, was declared semi-permanent and upon ten years service, was declared permanent under Work-Charged Rules 1964, as is evident from order dt.11/09/93 (Ann.1). On 30/04/2001, application was submitted by petitioner seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30/04/01, which was received in the office of Assistant Engineer Irrigation Department, Sub CW 2246/06 //2// Division, Bandikui and the same appears to have been forwarded for seeking permission of competent authority as is evident from letter dt.09/07/02 (Ann.4). No further orders either way has been passed by respondents. Counsel for petitioner submits that after expiry of three months period as provided U/r 50 (1) of Rules, 1996 from the date of submission of application seeking voluntary retirement, petitioner stood retired from service and he is entitled to retiral dues based on his qualifying service rendered. Reply has been filed by respondents and reference has been made therein with regard to correspondence having taken place between various offices but nothing has come forward as to what was final fate of application seeking voluntary retirement submitted by petitioner. Govt. Counsel is unable to assist this Court on the premise that file is not available with him. But it is a case where petitioner submitted application (Ann.2) on 30/04/01 seeking voluntary retirement and since then is not getting his retiral dues despite almost seven years have rolled by. Hence this Court considers it proper to decide the matter with the CW 2246/06 //3// assistance of Counsel for petitioner on the basis of material on record. R.50(1) of Rules, 1996 reads ad infra: “50. Retirement on completion of 15 year's qualifying service - (1) At any time after a Government servant has completed fifteen years qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority. Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall automatically become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.” From a perusal of R.50, ibid, it clearly emerges that if the authority has failed to pass an order within three months upon application being submitted by government servant seeking voluntary retirement, it becomes effective upon expiry of three months and employee stands retired. In instant case, application seeking voluntary retirement (Ann.2) was submitted on 30/04/01 which was duly forwarded by Assistant CW 2246/06 //4// Engineer for necessary permission, as is evident from letter dt.09/07/02 (Ann.4) – relevant part whereof reads ad infra: "ौीमान अधी¢ण अिभयÛ ता महोदय के िनदȶशानुसार ौी नाथुलाल मीणा पुऽ हर सहाय मीणा बेलदार ने अपना ः वेǔÍ छक सेवा िनोित Ǒदनांक 30-04-2001 से चाहȣ गई है कम[चारȣ को सेवा िनोत करना है इसके िलए कम[चारȣ कȧ सेवा पुǔः तका एवं आवँ यक ूमाण पऽ अदेय ूमाण पऽ एवं ǒवभागीय जांच ूमाण पऽो को संलÊ न करते हये ूकरण शीी ु िभजवाने ǔजससे आवँ यक काय[वाहȣ कȧ जा सके " and since no order either way has been passed by respondents on application seeking voluntary retirement, in the opinion of this Court, his application became effective on expiry of three months from its being submitted to the authority concerned and accordingly petitioner stood retired from service entitling for retiral dues. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Petitioner stands retired from service on 31/07/01 in terms of R.50(1) on expiry of three months from 30/04/01, date of his application, for which respondents are directed to pass necessary orders with consequential benefits entitling for grant of his retiral dues under Rules, 1996 for qualifying service rendered by petitioner. Arrears be computed and paid to petitioner under Rules, 1996 within three months. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/2246CW06-1905.doc