IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1717 of 2008 Date of Decision: 7.10.2009 Lal Singh …Petitioner. Versus. Union of India and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate. For the Respondents.: Mr. Anup Rattan, Central Government Counsel. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1st April, 2008 passed in O.A. No. 20- HP-08 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the present petitioner after obtaining a diploma of Electrician from the Banaras Hindu University in the year 1949 joined the Indian Army as a civilian employee on 26.05.1949 as Viewer Grade D. He was promoted and was working as Supervisor Grade-III in the year 1959. It appears that when the petitioner had come to his home- town in 1959 he met with an accident. Due to this reason, the petitioner admittedly requested for discharge from service. The 2 petitioner’s request was acceded to and he was discharged from service. Almost five decades later, i.e. in the year 2007, the petitioner sent a communication to the authorities that since he had retired from service he may be paid his pension, gratuity, etc. This representation was made in August, 2007. Reply was sent that since the petitioner had resigned from service he was not entitled to any pension. The petitioner then approached the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal held that the claim of the petitioner was highly belated. It further held that the petitioner had resigned from service and was, therefore, not entitled to pension. In the alternative, even if it be held to be a case of voluntary retirement then also the petitioner had not completed the necessary qualifying service of 20 years to entitle him to claim compensation. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. We have heard Shri Dinesh Bhanot, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anup Rattan, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents. Shri Bhanot, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner had never resigned from service and his request for discharge must be deemed to be a request for voluntary retirement and since under Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules the qualifying services is 10 years the petitioner is entitled to grant of pension. According to the petitioner, he has served the respondents for 10 years 4 months and 18 days. Assuming this to be correct, the question arises whether the petitioner is entitled to 3 pension. Admittedly, at this stage, after more than five decades the original letter of request of discharge of the petitioner cannot be produced. The same must have been destroyed by now. The petitioner himself has produced his service certificate, according to which he was discharged at his own request on 13th October, 1959. The petitioner places reliance on the CCS (Pension) Rules, which came into force on 1st June, 1972. These rules were not applicable in the year 1959. These rules cannot be applied retrospectively to a person who has retired much before the date when the rules were applied. Even as per the existing rules an employee can seek voluntary retirement under Rule 48-A only after he has put in 20 years of service. The employer may grant a concession of five years to be added as qualifying service. Even as per the existing rules, the actual service to be rendered in case of voluntary retirement is 15 years. The power of relaxation must also be exercised before the retirement and if no such order of relaxation is placed on record then voluntary retirement can be permitted only if the employee has completed 20 years of service. No employee can claim that he should be voluntarily retired or relaxation granted to him as a matter of right. The Apex Court in a number of cases has held that it is for the employer to decide whether the employee should be permitted to retire or not. In the present case, we are of the considered view that the request for discharge was in the nature of resignation. Even if for the sake of argument it is assumed to be request for voluntary retirement then also the petitioner had not completed the 4 qualifying service of 20 years and therefore was not entitled to any pension. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. October 7, 2009. ( V.K.Ahuja ). J. ™