Durga Devi vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 10311 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 10311 Raj
Judgement Date : 8 July, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Durga Devi vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 July, 2021

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13064/2020

Durga Devi W/o Late Shri Babulal Joshi, Aged About 56 Years, Presently Residing At Kodhiya Colony, Ramdevra, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director (Non-Gazzetted), Medical And Health Services, Health Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Pali.

4. The Block Chieff Medical Officer, Jaitaran, District Pali.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. YP Khileree
For Respondent(s)           :     Ms. Vandana Bhansali



                       JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                   Judgment

08/07/2021

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following

relief:-

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that Your Lordship may be pleased to allow this writ petition and -

a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the petitioner may be declared or treat voluntarily retired as per the provisions of Rule 50(2) of the Rules of 1996 from 16.01.2019 or 01.06.2019.

b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to release all the retiral benefits and due service benefits to the petitioner forthwith alongwith interest @ 12% on due amount.

c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the

(2 of 4) [CW-13064/2020]

medical leave/privilege leave/extra-ordinary leave from the period of 16.01.2019 to 31.05.2019 to the petitioner and treat her voluntarily retired as per the provisions of Rule 50(2) of the Rules of 1996;

d) In addition to above, by an appropriate writ, order or direction, any adverse order or proceedings, which will be passed during the pendency of the writ petition upon the application seeking voluntary retirement, after summoning from the respondents may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary and unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside;

e) any other appropriate order which is deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be also passed; and

f) the petitioner may kindly be allowed the cost of writ petition.

Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a Health Worker

(Female) on 02.11.1996 and after completion of 22 years of

services in the year 2019, an application was filed by the

petitioner under the provisions of Rule 50(1) of the Rajasthan Civil

Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 on 20.02.2019 (Annexure-5) for

seeking voluntary retirement.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the day on

which the petitioner filed an application for voluntary retirement,

there was no pendency of departmental inquiry nor any criminal

case was pending against the petitioner, therefore, in view of Rule

50 (1) of the Rules of 1996 the application filed by the petitioner

for voluntary retirement was to be accepted by the respondents

and respondents were under legal obligation to release her retiral

benefits, But in spite of the fact that application of the petitioner

was in accordance with the Rules the respondents did not pass

any order before expiry of period of notice but in the reply it has

been stated that due to non-availability of the Nursing Staff, the

application for voluntary retirement has been rejected.

                                        (3 of 4)                      [CW-13064/2020]



     Learned    counsel     for    the     petitioner           submits   that,   the

respondents cannot deny the acceptance of voluntary retirement

because as per Rule 50(1) of the Rules of 1996 voluntary

retirement can be refused if any departmental inquiry is pending

against an employee or he is facing any criminal trial, both the

grounds are not in existence, therefore, the respondents were

under an obligation to accept the petitioner's prayer for voluntary

retirement after expiry of three months from the date of

submitting the application for voluntary retirement, which is

20.02.2019.

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that

due to non-availability of Nursing Staff and health condition of the

citizens of the State, it was decided by the Government not to

accept the voluntary retirement application, therefore, there is no

illegality in the order because the decision of Government cannot

be questioned if it is taken in public interested.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused

Rule 50 (1) of the Rules of 1996, which provides right to the

employee to seek voluntary retirement. The Rule 50(1) of the

Rules of 1996 is as follows:-

"[50. Retirement on completion of 15 years' qualifying Service (1)At any time after a Government servant has completed fifteen years qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service.]"

Admittedly, petitioner was appointed on the post of Health

Worker (Female) and after completion of requisite period, an

application was filed for voluntary retirement and according to the

Rules of 1996 petitioner is very much entitled to seek voluntary

retirement, therefore, the action of the respondents in not passing

(4 of 4) [CW-13064/2020]

any formal order on petitioner's application, seeking voluntary

retirement is totally illegal and contrary to the Rules of 1996.

In view of above, the respondents are directed to treat the

petitioner voluntarily retired after completion of period of notice

w.e.f. 30.06.2020 and grant her all retiral benefits within a period

of three months from the date of producing certified copy of this