Bombay High Court
Dr. Gopal Tulshiram Jinde vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 6 June, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
Rane * 1/6 * WP-3988-2016 (sr.8)
6.6.2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3988 OF 2016
Dr. Gopal Tulshiram Jinde ......Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .......Respondents
----
Mr. A.S. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.C. Walimbe, A.G.P. for State, respondents no.1 to 3.
CORAM :- SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, &
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 6 June, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per :- SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) :-
1). Heard both sides.
2). Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith
and the matter is heard finally.
3). This petition has been preferred against the order of
Rane * 2/6 * WP-3988-2016 (sr.8)
6.6.2016
the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench
dated 20 October, 2015. By the said order, the OA
preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed.
4). The issue in this OA is the application for voluntary
retirement given by the petitioner on 13 March, 2014
which was rejected. As the application of the petitioner for
voluntary retirement came to be rejected, he preferred the
said OA, which as said earlier, came to be dismissed.
5). The petitioner joined Government Service in March,
1990. Thereafter, the petitioner held various posts and on
13 March, 2014 he submitted application for voluntary
retirement seeking retirement after expiry of notice period
of 3 months w.e.f. 12 June, 2014. The application of the
petitioner for voluntary retirement was rejected by
communication dated 9 June, 2014 by respondent no.1 on
the ground that large number of posts especially of
"Specialists" were vacant in the Public Health Department
and therefore the request of the applicant could not be
considered in public interest.
Rane * 3/6 * WP-3988-2016 (sr.8)
6.6.2016
6). The Learned Counsel for the petitioner, raised two
issues. The first issue is that, the petitioner on 13 March,
2014 applied for voluntary retirement under Rule 66 of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. Rule
66(1) provides that, a Government Servant who has
completed 20 years of qualifying service, may, by giving 3
months notice in writing to the Appointing Authority retire
from service. The petitioner, admittedly, had more than 20
years of qualifying service to his credit and he had given
three months notice on 13 March, 2014. No doubt, the
petitioner had the necessary qualifying service. Rule 66(2)
reads as under :-
"66(2) The notice of voluntary retirement
given under sub-rule (1) shall require
acceptance by the appointing authority."
. Thus, only if reply of acceptance is received from the
Appointing Authority, the Government Servant is deemed
to have retired after expiry of the notice period. In the
present case, respondent no.1, as Appointing Authority has
decided not to accept the notice of voluntary retirement of
the petitioner. Respondent no.1, has given reasons for the
aforesaid decision i.e. shortage of Doctors, especially
Rane * 4/6 * WP-3988-2016 (sr.8)
6.6.2016
"Specialists" in the Public Health Department of the State.
In our opinion, it cannot be said that, this reason is
malafide or arbitrary. It is within the powers of respondent
no.1 as per the Rules to refuse to accept the request for
voluntary retirement. Rule 66 unlike Rule 65 does not
provide for automatic acceptance of notice for voluntary
retirement after notice period is over. Admittedly, the
petitioner is covered by Rule 66 and not Rule 65.
7). The Learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that, he had to be communicated the decision
on his application within a period of 3 months. However,
the decision on his application was not communicated to
him within 3 months. On a query being made, the learned
Counsel for the petitioner, states that he was
communicated the decision on 11 June, 2014. The
application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement is
dated 13 March, 2014, in which case, he was
communicated the rejection thereof within a period of 3
months.
Rane * 5/6 * WP-3988-2016 (sr.8)
6.6.2016
8). Thereafter, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that, though the petitioner is a
Pediatrician, he was never given the work of a Pediatrician
and he was given other work and hence the reason for
rejecting his application that there were not enough
"Specialists" in the Public Health Department is totally
erroneous. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Specialist. On
going through the record, it does not appear that, this
reason that there is shortage of Doctors, especially of
"Specialists" in the Public Health Department and hence
the application for voluntary retirement cannot be
accepted, is malafide or arbitrary. It is within the powers of
respondent no.1, as per the Rules to refuse to accept the
request for voluntary retirement.
9). Looking to all the above facts, we are of the
opinion that, no case is made out for interference with the
order dated 20 October, 2015. Hence, Rule is discharged.
10). At this stage, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner submitted that, after his application for voluntary
Rane * 6/6 * WP-3988-2016 (sr.8)
6.6.2016
retirement was rejected, he submitted a detailed
representation dated 13 June, 2014 and there has been no
communication regarding the decision on this
representation. If such a representation has been preferred
by the petitioner, the Appointing Authority to take a
decision thereon within a period of 3 months from the date
of communication of this order. The Writ Petition is
disposed off accordingly. Rule is discharged.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J)
