(1) Dr. Gulzari Lal Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4853/2006. (Dr. Gulzari Lal Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) DATE OF ORDER : September 02, 2008 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas _______________________________ Mrs. Sushil Gupta for the petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Dave, Addl. Govt. Counsel. BY THE COURT : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that he has filed an application for voluntary retirement on 27.06.1990 but he has not been paid his dues by the respondents. It is very strange that while seeking such remedy the petitioner has not impleaded his employer as party and straight away this writ petition has been filed against the State Insurance & Provident Fund Department and against the Director, Medical & Health Centre, Jaipur. But, in fact, the (2) Dr. Gulzari Lal Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others petitioner was employee of Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur and he was posted as Assistant Professor in Medicines at Jodhpur. Later on, he was transferred to R.N.T. Medical College, Udaipur in the month of January 1990 and for that purpose he was relieved on 6th December, 1990. As per the petitioner, he filed an application for voluntary retirement in the R.N.T. Medical College, Udaipur but, both the colleges were not impleaded as party respondents. When this fact came to the knowledge of this Court, then, suo motu order was passed by this Court and both the colleges were impleaded as party respondents in the matter. After receiving notice from this Court, Mr. Rameshwar Dave, Addl. Government Counsel appeared on behalf of both the colleges and submitted that the petitioner while making false assertion with regard to seeking voluntary retirement in the writ petition and without impleading the employer as party respondents has tried to mislead this Court to get amounts of GPF and other benefits. Further, it was well within his knowledge that there is no order of acceptance of voluntary retirement, even then, he has prayed for direction to the respondents for payment of dues, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. (3) Dr. Gulzari Lal Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others Alongwith the reply, a letter dated 30.07.2008 has been annexed by the R.N.T. Medical College in which it is specifically stated that some amount has been paid as per direction given by Shri Sanjeev Kumar Das, Deputy Director, State Insurance & Provident Fund Department, Udaipur. But, no reasons have been assigned by the said authority for issuing such authority letter. It is also pointed out in the letter that a complaint was filed by the petitioner before the Lokayukt and the Secretary Lokayukta, Jaipur issued direction to the petitioner to file his order of acceptance of the voluntary retirement upon which the payments could be released. But, no such order was filed by the petitioner and, somehow, from Shri Sanjeev Kumar Das, Deputy Director, State Insurance & Provident Fund Department, Udaipur has obtained order for making payment of dues. Therefore, the payment was made without any order of the competent authority. When the fact of non-existence of voluntary retirement came to the knowledge of the Court, so also, during the course of argument it is revealed that the petitioner was initially appointed on 31.12.1981 and worked upto 27.06.1990, then, obviously there was no question of accepting any application for voluntary retirement. But, in para 2 of the writ petition and (4) Dr. Gulzari Lal Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others before the Lokayukta, it was specifically prayed by the petitioner that the petitioner took voluntary retirement; meaning thereby, the main contention of the petitioner before the Lokayukta and before this Court is that his application for voluntary retirement was accepted and, therefore, he was required to file the order of voluntary retirement. Vide order dated 26.08.2008, the petitioner himself was called in the Court to explain the correct position. Today, by way of filing affidavit, the petitioner submits that due to mistake he has stated that he took voluntary retirement but, in fact, he voluntarily gave resignation from service. The affidavit filed by the petitioner has been taken on record. In this view of the matter, the whole basis of the petitioner's claim is totally unfounded. More so, the affidavit filed by the petitioner shows that he has falsely stated in the writ petition that he has taken voluntary retirement, therefore, he is entitled for the benefits. In view of the above, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. Copy of this order may be sent to the Director, Provident Fund Department, Jaipur with the direction that the department may conduct proper inquiry into the matter as to how payment has been made to the petitioner even though he has not filed any (5) Dr. Gulzari Lal Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others order of voluntary retirement and the authorities are free to take appropriate action in accordance with law. No order as to costs. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.