Jayendra Singh Rathore vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1143 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1143 Raj
Judgement Date : 30 January, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jayendra Singh Rathore vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 30 January, 2023

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2023/RJJD/002862] (1 of 4) [CW-19312/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19312/2022

Jayendra Singh Rathore S/o Shri Ram Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 519, Tagore Nagar, Hiran Magri, Sector-4, Manwa Khera (Rural), Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Training, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

5. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

6. The Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

7. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary Education, Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

8. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary Education, Udiapur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :   Mr. Ramesh Kumar
For Respondent(s)             :   Mr. Vishal Jangid, Dy. GC



                       JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                       Order

30/01/2023

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner who was working

at post of Teacher Grade - III has challenged the action of the

respondents who have accepted his resignation in pursuance of an

[2023/RJJD/002862] (2 of 4) [CW-19312/2022]

application made by him in terms of the Rule 50 of the Rajasthan

Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as

'the Rules of 1996').

2. Shorn of unwarranted details, the facts are that on

17.10.2022, petitioner gave an application for voluntary

retirement in terms of Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 and the

effective date of retirement mentioned was 30.01.2023.

3. Petitioner's aforesaid application dated 17.10.2022 came to

be accepted by the competent authority - State Government on

23.11.2022. Whereafter, the petitioner moved a representation on

14.12.2022 and requested the respondents to permit him to

withdraw his application for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS)

and allow him to continue in service.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the order

dated 23.11.2022 (Annexure-4), whereby his resignation has been

accepted, be quashed and the respondents be directed to

reinstate him in the service.

5. While relying upon the Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996, learned

counsel argued that the acceptance of petitioner's resignation

before the effective date of retirement is illegal and the petitioner

can very well withdraw his application for VRS before the expiry of

such effective date.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

petition.

7. Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 reads thus:-

"50. Retirement on completion of 15 years'

qualifying service - (1) At any time after a

Government servant has completed fifteen years'

[2023/RJJD/002862] (3 of 4) [CW-19312/2022]

qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of

not less than three months in writing to the

appointing authority, retire from service.

(2) The notice of voluntary retirement given

under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by

the appointing authority:

Provided that where the appointing authority

does not refuse to grant the permission for

retirement before the expiry of the period

specified in the said notice, the retirement shall

automatically become effective from the date of

expiry of the said period."

8. A perusal of Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 shows that if an

application for VRS is not accepted before the expiry of the period

specified in the application, it shall be deemed to be accepted on

completion of such period i.e. effective date of retirement given in

the application for VRS. Such a provision does not prescribe a time

period within which an application is to be accepted neither does it

creates an embargo in accepting such application before the

effective date of retirement.

9. Since, petitioner's application dated 17.10.2022 has been

appropriately dealt with and accepted by the respondent on

23.11.2022, petitioner's right to withdraw the application dated

17.10.2022 stood forfeited.