The petitioners challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order granting voluntary retirement to the respondent. The respondent, employed as an Assistant in the government service, sought voluntary retirement citing personal and health reasons, including family tragedies. Despite the petitioners' rejection based on staff shortages and public interest, the CAT ruled in favor of the respondent. The High Court upheld this decision, quashing a circular restricting voluntary retirement rights.

1. Background:

• The respondent, Satish Namdeorao Andraskar, has been employed in government service since 1996, initially as a Lower Division Clerk, with subsequent promotions to Upper Division Clerk and Assistant.
• Due to personal family tragedies, deteriorating health, and hardships, the respondent requested voluntary retirement on May 9, 2023, under Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (CCS) Pension Rules.

2. Employer's Rejection:

• The Union of India, the petitioners, rejected the respondent's request on July 7, 2023, citing administrative reasons, including staff shortages.
• The petitioners referred to Rule 56(k) of the Fundamental Rules, arguing that granting voluntary retirement is at the discretion of the employer, especially when public interest is involved.

3. Tribunal's Decision:

• The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowed the respondent’s application for voluntary retirement, ruling that the refusal by the petitioners was arbitrary and against the CCS Pension Rules.
• The CAT also quashed a circular issued on May 12, 2023, which imposed restrictions on voluntary retirement applications.

4. High Court Judgment:

• The Bombay High Court affirmed the CAT's decision, declaring that the respondent had met all the criteria for voluntary retirement under Rule 48-A of the CCS Pension Rules.
• The court ruled that executive circulars cannot override statutory rules and found the rejection of voluntary retirement unjustified.
• It was further declared that the respondent stood retired on August 9, 2023, with instructions for the release of pension and other benefits.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Central Civil Services (CCS) Pension Rules:

   • Rule 48-A: Governs voluntary retirement for government employees with over 20 years of service.
   • Rule 48-B: Related provisions on notice periods and voluntary retirement conditions.

2. Fundamental Rules:

   • Rule 56(k)(1): Grants discretion to employers in accepting or rejecting voluntary retirement requests.

3. Relevant Case Law:

   • State of Uttar Pradesh vs Achal Singh (2018): Cited by the petitioners to emphasize the discretion employers have in rejecting voluntary retirement in public interest.

Ratio Decidendi:

The ratio of the case is that voluntary retirement under Rule 48-A of the CCS Pension Rules is a statutory right, and the employer’s discretion to refuse it cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in contradiction of statutory provisions. While Rule 56(k) of the Fundamental Rules allows employers discretion in rejecting such requests, this must be done judiciously and cannot contravene established legal rights. The court ruled that the respondent’s request met all statutory requirements, and thus, the rejection was invalid.

Subjects:

#EmploymentLaw #VoluntaryRetirement #CCSRules #GovernmentEmployees #PensionRights #AdministrativeTribunal #PublicSectorEmployment