SBCWP NO.1426/01. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1426/2001. Devi Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. Date of Order:- December 7, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ None present for the petitioner. Shri Taj Prakash Sharma for the respondents. ******* BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Devi Singh with the prayer to direct the respondents to grant him benefit of additional service of five years for the purpose of payment of pension and gratuity as per rules applicable at the time when he served notice dated 15/1/1980 seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1/5/1980 afternoon. Petitioner thereafter submitted an application to the respondents on 26/1/1990 for grant of Leave Preparatory Retirement (L.P.R.) but since his application for voluntary retirement was pending, he was not granted that leave. Contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that as per rules, petitioner sought voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1/5/1980 on 15/1/1980. Under the rules, he was entitled to receive benefit of additional service of five years for the purpose of SBCWP NO.1426/01. 2 pension and gratuity. Those rules were amended w.e.f. 1/5/1980 and petitioner sought voluntary retirement with effect from the said date. Once the respondents did not reject his application for voluntary retirement, voluntary retirement became effective on expiry of notice period on 1/5/1980 in terms of Rule 48-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short, “CCA Rules”). As per the said rule, petitioner was entitled to receive benefit of additional service of five years but his services were discontinued from June, 1980. However, respondents illegally kept the request of the petitioner pending and accepted his application while retiring him from service w.e.f. 28/8/1980. It is contended that benefit of additional service of five years was one of the allurements, which prompted the petitioner to make an application seeking voluntary retirement and that when pension case of the petitioner was finalised, he came to know that he has been denied that benefit. He therefore made a representation to the respondents and thereafter filed the writ petition. Shri T.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioner after making application for voluntary retirement on 15/1/1980, respondents did not reject application of the petitioner for grant of L.P.R. on 26/1/1990 but his application was kept pending for want of information whether or not petitioner qualified for voluntary retirement and for that purpose, queries were made from the concerned officers. An application dated SBCWP NO.1426/01. 3 1/3/1980 was again moved by the petitioner, due to acute shortage of superintending officers however, prayer of the petitioner for voluntary retirement could not be immediately accepted. Moreover, his application for considering his case for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police has also not been received. When all those formalities were completed, petitioner was allowed to proceed on voluntary retirement on 28/8/1980. Petitioner cannot be granted benefit of additional service of five years because in June, 1980 that benefit was withdrawn and the order of voluntary retirement was passed on 27/8/1980. Having considered the arguments aforesaid and perused the material available on record, I find that Rule 48-A of the Rules of 1972 is categorical on this aspect that at any time after a Government servant has completed twenty years' qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the Appointing Authority, retire from service. Proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 48-A of the Rules of 1972 provides 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 become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. In the present case, petitioner while serving upon respondents notice of voluntary retirement, he sought voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1/5/1980. No doubt, respondents could withheld the permission to voluntary retire the petitioner on any reason, which they thought proper to assign but SBCWP NO.1426/01. 4 here in the present case, competent authority never declined such permission of the petitioner or otherwise conveyed rejection of his application seeking voluntary retirement. Petitioner in the present case therefore would be by operation of Rule 48-A deemed to have retired on 1/5/1980. Mere fact that petitioner was for the purpose of finalization of his pension case requested for his detachment to battalion would not be a reason not to accept his prayer for voluntary retirement. By operation of Rule 48-A, petitioner was entitled to compulsory retirement w.e.f. 1/5/1980 and was thus become entitled to additional service of five years as per rules then in force. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to grant benefit of additional service of five years to the petitioner as per rule available at the relevant time w.e.f. 1/5/1980 for the purpose of pension and gratuity and other retiral benefits together with interest @6% p.a. Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is produced before the respondents. A copy of this order be endorsed to the petitioner for his information. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) J. anil