IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 15894 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 11th January, 2010. Jitenderjit Singh Petitioner through Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner joined as a Lecturer in Geography [College Cadre] in the Higher Education Department, Government of Punjab on 6.1.1983 initially on ad-hoc basis followed by his regular appointment on 10.02.1988 on the recommendations made by the Punjab Public Service Commission. While serving as such, the petitioner sought for voluntary retirement vide application dated 21.11.2008 [Annexure P-1]. Rule 3 [2] of the Punjab Civil Services [Premature Retirement] Rules, 1975 contemplates that any Government employee may, after giving at least three months' previous notice in writing to the appropriate authority, retire from service on the date on which he completes twenty five years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age on any date thereafter. The petitioner was born on 1.4.1958. Having completed 50 years of age on 1.4.2008, he was entitled to seek voluntary retirement after giving three months' notice. The petitioner did serve three months' advance notice on 21.11.2008. It is his case and not controverted by the respondents that no disciplinary action was pending against him nor was he placed under suspension at the time when he sought voluntary retirement. It is also apparent from the impugned order itself that the period of three months advance notice expired in February, 2009. The petitioner is, therefore, deemed to have retired from service on 20.2.2009. I say so for the reason that the third respondent or for that matter the other official respondents also have no authority whatsoever under the Rules of 1975 to deny or withhold 'voluntary retirement' sought by the petitioner. The impugned order dated 15.09.2009 whereby the petitioner's request for 'voluntary retirement' has been declined, is otherwise cryptic and assigns no reason at all. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 15.09.2009 is hereby quashed and it is held that the petitioner is deemed to have retired from service on completion of three months' notice period served by him and is entitled to all the retiral benefits, in accordance with the Rules, immediately on such retirement. The retiral benefits shall be released to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Dasti. January 11, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE