IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) 12533 of 2008. Decided on: August 25, 2011. Ram Parsad …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. AG. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner joined as Shastri in the Education Department of H.P. on 8.4.1977. He went on three months leave in August, 1998 and with the permission of his employer, he left for a foreign country. He did not return from that foreign country and applied for premature retirement in July, 2003, vide Annexure A-7. No order was passed on Annexure A-7, by Deputy Director (Education), impleaded as respondent No. 3 herein for more than eight months. On 23.3.2004, he was intimated that his request for voluntary retirement had been rejected. On 18.5.2004, he was charge sheeted. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of rejection of his request for voluntary retirement, made through Annexure A-7 and also by the action of charge Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - sheeting him, for willful absence. His plea is that when he had applied for voluntary retirement and no order on his request had been conveyed to him within three months of the receipt of such request by respondent No. 3, presumption is that he stands voluntarily retired. For drawl of such presumption, reliance has been placed on the proviso to Rule 48-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. It is also his case that once the petitioner is to be deemed to have voluntarily retired, on expiry of three months period, to be counted from the date of notice, Annexure A-7, question of his being charge sheeted for willful absence, does not arise, because of his being no more an employee of the respondents, at the time of serving of the charge sheet. 2. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that acceptance of request for voluntary retirement, is not automatic, on completion of three months period, and that specific order is required to be passed. It is also their plea that since petitioner has been charge sheeted, he is not entitled to seek voluntary retirement. Also, it is stated that the petitioner’s request for voluntary retirement already stands rejected. At the same time, it is stated that request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement can be considered only after the conclusion of departmental inquiry. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, as also learned Assistant Advocate General, and gone through the record. - 3 - 4. Petitioner’s request for voluntary retirement, Annexure A-7, does not specify as to from which date, or after expiry of how much period, voluntary retirement was to become effective. As per Rule 48-A (1), upon which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, a person seeking voluntary retirement has to give notice of not less than three months in writing, to his employer. Since in Annexure A-7, period is not specified, the same cannot be said to be a valid notice, in terms of aforesaid Rule 48-A (1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. If that is so, petitioner cannot be heard to say that in view of proviso to Rule 48-A, it is to be deemed that he (the petitioner) stood voluntarily retired, on expiry of three months, from the date of receipt of Annexure A-7, by respondent No. 3. Otherwise also, when there are special rules regarding premature retirement, framed by the State Government in respect of its employees, the matter is to be governed not by Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, but the special rules of the State Government. Those rules were notified in the year 1976 and are known as The Himachal Pradesh Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1976. The relevant provision is in rule 3(2) of the said Rules. 5. Petitioner’s counsel submits that a fresh notice for voluntary retirement dated 1.1.2008 has been served by the petitioner on respondent No. 3, but there is no order on that request also. Also, it is submitted by counsel for the - 4 - petitioner that though charge sheet was issued in the year 2004, upon the petitioner for his alleged willful absence, no further action has been taken in the matter. 6. In view of these submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the notice of voluntary retirement, served by the petitioner on 1.1.2008 and such order should be a speaking one. The aforesaid direction be complied with within two months, from the date of this judgment. August 25, 2011(PC) (Surjit Singh ), J.