2018 INSC 0557
1
REPORTABLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIO N
Civil Appeal No. 8421 Of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.12601 of 2018)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.    ..APPELLANTS
VERSUS
ACHAL SINGH            ..RESPONDENT
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 8422  of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.18737 of 2018)
Civil Appeal No. 8423 of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.18739 of 2018)
AND 
Civil Appeal No. 8424 of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.18741 of 2018)
J U D G M E N T
ARUN MISHRA, J.
1. Leave granted.

2
2. The   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   in   the   appeals   is   aggrieved   by
common judgment and order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, allowing the writ petitions filed
by   the   respondents   herein   seeking   voluntary   retirement   from   the
Government services.  Directions were issued to treat the respondents
to have retired from Government services with effect from 30.11.2017
and 31.12.2017.
3. The   main   question   for   consideration   before   us   is   as   to   whether
under   Rule   56   of   the   Uttar   Pradesh   Fundamental   Rules   (hereinafter
referred to as the “Fundamental Rules”) as amended, an employee has
unfettered   right   to   seek   voluntary   retirement   by   serving   a   notice   of
three   months   to   the   State   Government   or   whether   the   State
Government   under   the   Explanation   attached   to   Rule   56   of   the
Fundamental   Rules,   is   authorised   to   decline   the   prayer   for   voluntary
retirement   in   the   public   interest   under   clause   (c)   of   Rule   56   of   the
Fundamental Rules as applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh.
4. The respondent ­ Dr. Achal Singh was working as Joint Director
in   Medical,   Health   and   Family   Welfare,   Lucknow   Region,   Lucknow
filed   an   application   dated   14.12.2016   for   voluntary   retirement   w.e.f.
31.3.2017.  Respondent – Dr. Ajay Kumar Tiwari was holding the post
of   Joint   Director,   Medical,   Health   and   Family   Welfare,   Devi   Patan
Mandal,   Gonda,   filed   an   application   on   28.2.2017   seeking   voluntary
retirement   w.e.f.   31.5.2017.     Respondent   ­   Dr.   Rajendra   Kumar

3
Srivastava was working  as Senior Consultant, filed  an  application  for
voluntary   retirement   on   15.4.2015   and   respondent   ­   Dr.   Rajiv
Chaudhary   was   working   as   Senior   Consultant   at   District   Hospital,
Raibareli,   he   sought   voluntary   retirement   by   filing   an   application   on
3.12.2016.     The   applications   remained   unattended   and   no   order   had
been communicated, hence writ petitions were filed in the High Court.
The   respondents­doctors   were   members   of   the   Provincial   Medical
Services.
5. The   High   Court   in   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   has
observed that it is the  responsibility   of  the  authorities to  monitor  the
health   system   in   the   State   and   they   have   to   sincerely   examine   the
issues   as   to   how   the   working   of   the   Government   hospitals   can   be
improved   for   the   betterment   of   the   general   public   and   find   out   why
doctors are opting for voluntary retirement every day.  The High Court
also   observed   that   the   doctors   are   not   interested   in   joining   the
Government   service   when   fresh   recruitments   take   place.     The   High
Court has also noted that posts of Medical Officers are not being filled
up  on  account of  non­availability  of  candidates.     The  High  Court  has
further   noted   that   those   who   have   entered   into   Government   service
are continuously opting for voluntary retirement from service causing
serious   scarcity   of   doctors   in   Government   hospitals   and   Primary
Health Centres.

4
6. The   High   Court   in   the   impugned   judgment   has   also   referred   to
the   report   of   the   MCI   and   the   existing   proportion   of   one   doctor   per
2000   population.       In   fact,   the   number   of   doctors   is   much   smaller
than   the   number   given   in   the   MCI   report.     The   High   Court   also
observed that the doctors are being posted, in spite of scarcity, on the
administrative   posts   that   causes   wastage   of   specialised   talent.     The
High   Court   has   also   observed   that   the   authorities   must   provide
adequate   infrastructure,   working   equipment,   and   a   proper   working
environment. The hospitals should be made excellent centres of health
care.     It   should   be   the   object   of   the   State   Government   to   provide
doctors   with   good   opportunities   so   as   to   retain   them   in   services.     At
the   same   time,   the   High   Court   has   also   observed   that   in   order   to
enhance   the   better   medical   facilities   to   the   poor   and   needy   people,   it
would   be   appropriate   to   maintain   a   balance   between   the   senior   and
junior   doctors   in   each   Primary   Health   Centres   in   rural   and   urban
areas.     There   is   a   need   to   provide   continuing   medical   education   to
doctors   and   to   hold   conferences   and   seminars   to   exchange   the   latest
views/opinions/knowledge   etc.   and   their   performance   in   such   events
should   also   be   considered   for   promotion   etc.     At   the   same   time,   the
High   Court   has   allowed   the   writ   petitions   and   treated   the   doctors   to
have retired voluntarily on the dates specified. Aggrieved thereby, the
State has come up in these appeals.

5
7. It   was   urged   by   Mr.   P.N.   Mishra,   learned   senior   counsel
appeared   on   behalf   of   appellant   that   as   per   Explanation   attached   to
Rule   56   of   the   Fundamental   Rules   as   amended   in   the   State   of   Uttar
Pradesh,   it   was   open   to   the   State   Government   to   take   a   decision
whether   to   retire   an   employee   voluntarily   under   Rule   56(a)   duly
considering   the   public   interest   or   decline   the   applications   for
voluntary retirement.  It was also submitted that there is no automatic
retirement on the expiry of the period of notice of three months served
under Rule 56 as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh.   There has
to   be   an   express   order   granting   permission   to   retire   voluntarily,   only
thereafter an employee can be said to have retired voluntarily.     There
is a scarcity of doctors in the Provincial Health Services in the State of
Uttar   Pradesh,   thus,   the   State   Government   has   not   accepted   the
applications   for   voluntary   retirement.     The   directions   issued   by   the
High   Court   is   based   on   a   misinterpretation   of   Rule   56   of   the
Fundamental Rules and is against the public interest.
8. It was contended by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of   the   appellants   that   in   the   case   of   Dr.   Achal   Singh,   the   State
Government   has   passed   the   order   on   31.5.2017.     The   prayer   for
voluntary retirement was rejected on the ground of lack of specialised
doctors   and   in   public   interest   and   the   notice   seeking   voluntary
retirement   under   Rule   56   was   rejected   and   in   other   cases,   the
applications  were  kept  pending.  They  further  contended  that  Rule  56

6
contemplates a notice and not a request for voluntary retirement.   An
employee   is   not   required   to   give   reason   while   giving   a   notice   for
voluntary   retirement   and   in   any   such   event,   such   reasons   are   not
justiciable.     It   is   a   prerogative   of   the   employee   to   seek   voluntary
retirement.  The right of the employee to retire voluntarily corresponds
with   the   right   of   the   State   Government   to   retire   him   in   the   case   of
deficiency in services.  As held in  Dinesh Chandra Sangma vs. State of
Assam,   (1977) 4 SCC 441, the rule provides right to retire and not to
seek   it.     The   acceptance   of   the   appointing   authority   is   required   only
when   the   disciplinary   enquiry   is   pending   and   its   pendency   has   been
communicated to the employee.  Once notice of three months is given,
the   doctor   is   deemed   to   have   retired   and   any   action   of   attempting   to
reject   the   notice   of   voluntary   retirement   after   the   said   date   is
ineffective   in   law.     The   decision   has   to   be   taken   within   a   period   of
three   months,   otherwise,   the   employee   is   automatically   deemed   to
have   retired   on   the   lapse   of   three   months’   period.     It   was   contended
that the court not to interfere with the principle of certainty of rule of
law   may   be   applied   and   long­standing   precedent   of   Dinesh   Chandra
Sangma   (supra)   may   not   be   dislodged   and   be   applied   to   the   cases   at
hand.     The   only   condition   of   voluntary   retirement   is   fulfilled   after
completion of 20 years of service and if it is allowed, it does not affect
the availability of doctors.  The State has not taken care to recruit the
doctors.     It   is   not   permissible   to   withhold   the   order   of   voluntary

7
retirement.     In   case   this   Court   does   not   agree   with   the   decision
rendered   in   Dinesh   Chandra   Sangma   (supra),   the   matter   may   be
referred   to   a   larger   Bench.     The   view   taken   by   the   High   Court   in   the
impugned   judgment   and   order   may   be   affirmed   with   the   rider   of   an
imposition of the moratorium to balance the equities.
9. In   order   to   appreciate   the   rival   submissions,   it   is   necessary   to
consider   the   Fundamental   Rules   as   amended   in   the   State   of   Uttar
Pradesh.     The   same   is   somewhat   different   from   the   rules   framed   in
other States.   Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules as amended in the State
of Uttar Pradesh, is extracted hereunder:
“56.(a)     Except   as   otherwise   provided   in   this   Rule,   every
Government   servant   other   than   a   Government   servant   in
inferior service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the
last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty eight
years.     He   may   be   retained   in   service   after   the   date   of
compulsory retirement with the sanction of the Government on
public   grounds   which   must   be   recorded   in   writing,   but   he
must  not  be  retained  after  the  age  of  60  years 1
  except  in  very
special circumstances.
(b)     A   Government   servant   in   inferior  service   shall   retire   from
service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which
he  attains  the  age   of  sixty  years.    He   must  not  be   retained  in
service   after   that   date,   except   in   very   special   circumstances
and with sanction of the Government.
(c)  Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) or clause
(b), the appointing authority may, at any time by notice to any
Government   servant   (whether   permanent   or   temporary),
without   assigning   any   reason,   require   him   to   retire   after   he
attains the age of fifty years or such Government servant may
by   notice   to   the   appointing   authority   voluntarily   retire   at   any
time   after   attaining   the   age   of   forty­five   years   or   after   he   has
completed qualifying service of twenty years.
1   In   the   Medical,   Health   and   Family   Welfare   Department   in   State   Medical   and   Health
Services, the retirement age of Medical Officers in public interest has been approved as 62
years in place of 60 years with certain conditions vide Notification No.2324/SEC­2­5­2017­
7(237)/2014 dated 31.5.2017.

8
(d)  the period of such notice shall be three months:
Provided that­
(i)     any   such   Government   servant   may   by   order   of   the
appointing   authority,   without   such   notice   or   by   a   shorter
notice,  be retired  forthwith at  any  time after attaining the  age
of fifty years, and on such retirement the Government servant
shall   be   entitled   to   claim   a   sum   equivalent   to   the   amount   of
his pay plus allowances, if any, for the period of the notice, or
as   the   case   may   be,   for   the   period   by   which   such   notice   falls
short   of   three   months,   at   the   same   rates   at   which   he   was
drawing immediately before this retirement;
(ii)     it   shall   be   open   to   the   appointing   authority   to   allow   a
Government   servant   to   retire   without   any   notice   or   by   a
shorter   notice   without   requiring   the   Government   servant   to
pay any penalty in lieu of notice:
Provided   further   that   such   notice   given   by   the   Government
servant   against   whom   a  disciplinary   proceeding  is   pending  or
contemplated,   shall   be   effective   only   if   it   is   accepted   by   the
appointing   authority,   provided   that   in   the   case   of   a
contemplated   disciplinary  proceeding  the   Government   servant
shall be informed before the expiry of his notice that it has not
been accepted:
Provided   also   that   the   notice   once   given   by   a   Government
servant under clause (c) seeking voluntary retirement shall not
be   withdrawn   by   him   except   with   the   permission   of   the
appointing authority.
(e)     A   retiring   pension   shall   be   payable   and   other   retirement
benefits,   if   any,   shall   be   available   in   accordance   with   and
subject   to   the   provisions   of   the   relevant   Rules   to   every
Government   servant   who   retires   or   is   required   or   allowed   to
retire under this rule.
Provided   that   where   a   Government   servant   who   voluntarily
retires   or   is   allowed   voluntarily   to   retire   under   this   rule   the
appointing   authority   may   allow   him,   for   the   purposes   of
pension and gratuity, if any, the benefit of additional service of
five years or of such period as he would have served if he had
continued   till   the   ordinary   date   of   his   superannuation,
whichever be less;
Explanation.­   (1)     The   decision   of   the   appointing   authority
under clause (c) to require the Government servant to retire as
specified   therein   shall   be   taken   if   it   appears   to   the   said
authority to be in public interest, but nothing herein contained
shall be construed to require any recital, in the order, of such
decision having been taken in the public interest.
(2)     In   order   to   be   satisfied   whether   it   will   be   in   the   public
interest to require a Government servant to retire under clause

9
(c),   the   appointing   authority   may   take   into   consideration   any
material   relating   to   the   Government   servant   and   nothing
herein   contained   shall   be   construed   to   exclude   from
consideration –
(a)  any entries relating to any period before such Government
servant was allowed to cross any efficiency bar or before he
was   promoted   to   any   post   in   an   officiating   or   substantive
capacity or on an ad hoc basis; or
(b) any   entry   against   which   a   representation   is   pending,
provided   that   the   representation   is   also   taken   into
consideration along with the entry; or
(c) any   report   of   the   Vigilance   Establishment   constituted
under   the   Uttar   Pradesh   Vigilance   Establishment   Act,
1965.
(2A)   Every   such   decision   shall   be   deemed   to   have   been   taken
in the public interest.
(3)     The   expression   appointing   authority   means   the   authority
which   for   the   time   being   has   the   power   to   make   substantive
appointments   to   the   post   or   service   from   which   the
Government   servant   is   required   or   wants   to   retire;   and   the
expression ‘qualifying service' shall have the same meaning as
in the relevant Rules relating to retiring pension.
(4)     Every   order   of   the   appointing   authority   requiring   a
Government  servant  to  retire  forthwith  under  the  first  proviso
to clause (d) of this rule shall have effect from the afternoon of
the date of its issue, provided that if after the date of its issue,
the Government servant concerned,  bona fide  and in ignorance
of that order, performs the duties of his office his acts shall be
deemed   to   be   valid   notwithstanding   the   fact   of   his   having
earlier retired.”
Reading   of   the   aforesaid   rule   makes   it   clear   that   an   employee
can be retired by the Government after he attains the age of 50 years
or   Government   servant   may   voluntarily   retire   at   any   time   after
attaining   the   age   of   45   years   or   after   he   has   completed   qualifying
service of 20 years under Rule 56(c).  It is provided in the Rule 56 that
Government may retire a Government servant without any notice or by
serving   a   shorter   notice   and   on   such   retirement,   the   Government
servant   shall   be   entitled   to   claim   a   sum   equivalent   to   the   amount   of

10
his   pay   plus   allowances,   if   any,   for   the   period   of   notice   or   for   the
period it falls short of three months at the same rates at which he was
drawing   immediately   before   his   retirement.     It   is   also   open   to   the
Government   to   allow   a   Government   servant   to   retire   without   any
notice   or   by   a   shorter   notice   without   requiring   the   Government
servant to pay any penalty in lieu of notice.   The proviso to Rule 56(d)
makes it clear that the notice given by the Government servant against
whom   a   disciplinary   proceeding   is   pending   or   contemplated,   shall   be
effective only if it is accepted by the appointing authority and provided
that   in   case   of   a   contemplated   disciplinary   proceeding,   the
Government  servant   shall   be   informed   before   the   expiry   of   the   notice
that it has not been accepted. It is also provided that once a notice is
given by a Government servant seeking voluntary retirement shall not
be   withdrawn   by   him   except   with   the   permission   of   the   appointing
authority. 
Rule  56(e)   provides  that  pension   and  other   retiral   benefits   shall
be available to every Government servant, who retires or is required or
allowed   to   retire   under   the   rule.     Proviso   to   Rule   56(e)   provides   that
appointing  authority  at its  discretion  may  allow  benefits of additional
service   of   5   years   to   such   employees   who   voluntarily   retires   or   is
allowed voluntarily to retire under the rule for the purposes of pension
and   gratuity   or   of   such   period   as   he   would   have   served   if   he   had
continued till the ordinary date of his superannuation.

11
10. The   explanation   attached   to   Rule   56   makes   it   clear   that   the
decision   of   the   appointing   authority   under   clause   (c)   of   Rule   56   to
retire a Government servant shall be taken if it appears to be in public
interest.     The   explanation   is   applicable   to   both   the   exigencies   viz.,
when   Government   retires   an   employee   or   when   an   employee   seeks
voluntary   retirement,   not   only   when   Government   desires   to   retire   an
employee  in  public  interest.    The  Explanation  attached  to  Rule  56  as
applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh is clear and precise.
11. In our opinion, whether voluntary retirement is automatic or an
order   is   required   to   be   passed   would   depend   upon   the   phraseology
used   in   a   particular   rule   under   which   retirement   is   to   be   ordered   or
voluntary retirement is sought.  The factual position of each and every
case   has   to   be   seen   along   with   applicable   rules   while   applying   a
dictum   of   the   Court   interpreting   any   other   rule   it   should   be   Pari
Materia.     Rule   56(2)   deals   with   the   satisfaction   of   the   Government  to
require a Government servant to retire in the public interest.   For the
purpose,   the   Government   may   consider   any   material   relating   to
Government servant and may requisition any report from the Vigilance
Establishment.
12.   The   respondents   have   relied   on   dictum   in   Dinesh   Chandra
Sangma vs. State of Assam,  (1977) 4 SCC 441, a three­Judge Bench of
this Court observed as under:

12
“7.   Before   we   proceed   further   we   may   read   F.   R.   56   as
amended:
F.R.56(a)   The   date   of   compulsory   retirement   of   a
Government   servant   is   the   date   on   which   he
attains the age of 55 years. He may be retained in
service   after   this   age   with   sanction   of   the   State
Government   on   public   grounds   which   must   be
recorded   in   writing   and   proposals   for   the
retention of a Government servant in service after
this   age   should   not   be   made   except   in   very
special circumstances.
(b)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   these
rules   the   appropriate   authority   may,   if   he   is   of
the   opinion   that   it   is   in   the   public   interest   to   do
so,   retire   Government   servant   by   giving   him
notice of not less than three months in writing or
three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such
notice,   after   he   has   attained   fifty   years   of   age   or
has   completed   25   years   of   service,   whichever   is
earlier.
(c) Any Government servant may, by giving notice
of   not   less   than   three   months   in   writing   to   the
appropriate authority, retire from service after he
has   attained   the   age   of   fifty   years   or   has
completed   25   years   of   service,   whichever   is
earlier.
It   is   clear   from   the   above   that   under   F.   R.   56(b)   the
Government   may   retire   a   Government   servant   in   the   public
interest by giving him three months' notice in writing or three
months'   pay   and   allowances   in   lieu   thereof   after   he   has
attained   the   age   of   fifty   years   or   has   completed   25   years   of
service, whichever is earlier.
8.   As   is   well­known   Government   servants   hold   office   during
the pleasure of the President or the Governor, as the case may
be,   under   Article   310   of   the   Constitution.   However,   the
pleasure doctrine under Article 310 is limited by Article 311(2).
It is clear that the services of a permanent Government servant
cannot   be   terminated   except   in   accordance   with   the   rules
made   under   Article   309   subject   to   Article   311(2)   of   the
Constitution   and   the   Fundamental   Rights.   It   is   also   well­
settled   that   even   a   temporary   Government   servant   or   a
probationer   cannot   be   dismissed   or   removed   or   reduced   in
rank   except   in   accordance   with   Article   311(2).   The   above
doctrine   of   pleasure   is   invoked   by   the   Government   in   the
public   interest   after   a   Government   servant   attains   the   age   of
50   years   or   has   completed   25   years   of   service.   This   is
constitutionally   permissible   as   compulsory   termination   of

13
service   under   F.R.   56   (b)   does   not   amount   to   removal   or
dismissal   by   way   of   punishment.   While   the   Government
reserves its right to compulsorily retire a Government servant,
even   against   his   wish,   there   is   a   corresponding   right   of   the
Government servant under F. R. 56(c) to voluntarily retire from
service   by   giving   the   Government   three   months'   notice   in
writing.   There   is   no   question   of   acceptance   of   the   request   for
voluntary retirement by the Government when the Government
servant   exercises   his   right   under   F.   R.   56(c).   Mr.   Niren   De   is
therefore right in conceding this position.
*** *** ***
13.   F.R.   56   is   one   of   the   statutory   rules   which   binds   the
Government as well as the Government servant. The condition
of service  which is envisaged  in Rule 56(c)  giving  an option in
absolute   terms   to   a   Government   servant   to   voluntarily   retire
with   three   months'   previous   notice,   after   he   reaches   50   years
of   age   or   has   completed   25   years   of   service,   cannot   therefore
be   equated   with   a   contract   of   employment   as   envisaged   in
Explanation 2 to Rule 119.
14.   The   field   occupied   by   F.   R.   56   is   left   untrammelled   by
Explanation   2   to   Rule   119.   The   words   "his   contract   of
employment" in Explanation 2 are clinching on the point.
*** *** ***
17. The High Court committed an error on law in holding that
consent of the Government was necessary to give legal effect to
the   voluntary   retirement   of   the   appellant   under   F.R.   56(c).
Since   the   conditions   of   F.R.   56(c)   are   fulfilled   in   the   instant
case,   the   appellant   must   be   held   to   have   lawfully   retired   as
notified by him with effect from August 2, 1976.
13. It   was   submitted   that   despite   the   absence   of   any   identical
language,   the   rule   involved   in   Dinesh   Chandra   Sangma   (supra)   is
comparable with Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules and therefore, the
judgment is binding.  The submission based upon the same cannot be
accepted   and   Rule   56(b)(c)   came   up   for   consideration   was   somewhat
different and there was no such Explanation to Rule 56.

14
14. In   Dinesh   Chandra   Sangma   (supra)   he   was   the   District   and
Sessions   Judge   at   Dibrugarh   in   the   State   of   Assam.     On   account   of
domestic troubles, he did not want to continue after attainment of the
age  of 50 years.   He served a notice under Rule 56(c) as amended by
the   Governor   of   Assam   under   Article   309   of   the   Constitution   by
notification   dated   22.7.1975.     The   formal   notice   was   served   upon   by
him.     The   Government   allowed   him   to   retire   from   the   State
Government Service  and then there  were  certain  developments in  the
Government   and   Government   sought   to   retrace   its   steps   and   passed
an order on 28.7.1976, countermanding its earlier order allowing him
to  retire  from  service.   The High  Court  dismissed  the writ application
filed   by   him.     The   Fundamental   Rule   as   applicable   in   the   State   of
Assam   came   up   for   consideration.     In   our   opinion,   it   was   quite
different.     It   is   provided   in   the   Fundamental   Rule   56(b)   as   applicable
in   the   State   of   Assam   that   public   interest   was   germane   when   a
Government servant retires.   Under Rule 56(c), a Government servant
may   retire   by   giving   notice   of   not   less   than   three   months.     Hence   it
was observed that there was no question of acceptance of the request
for   voluntary   retirement   by   the   Government   when   the   Government
servant   exercises   his   right   under   Rule   56(c).     Not   only   the   rule   was
different   it   was   passed   on   the   concession   also,   however,   the
Explanation   given   to   Rule   56   in   the   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   makes   it
completely   different   and   the   provisions   in   F.R.56(c)   is   also   quite

15
different.     The   rules   as   applicable   in   Assam   for   the   purpose   of
retirement by the Government is contained in F.R.56(b) which require
retirement   in   public   interest   whereas   no   such   rider   exist   in   F.R.56(c)
when employee seek voluntary retirement, whereas rule in the State of
Uttar   Pradesh   both   provisions   are   conjointly   read   not   only   the
language   is   different   and   the   explanation   makes   out   the   whole
difference.
15. The Explanation attached to Rule 56 as applicable in the State of
Uttar   Pradesh   makes   it   clear   that   when   a   decision   is   taken   by   the
authority under clause (c) of Rule 56, the right of an employee to retire
cannot be said to be absolute as in the case of resignation, voluntary
retirement is with retiral benefits whereas it may not necessarily follow
in   case   of   resignation.   The   decision   under   the   rules   in   U.P.   is   to   be
based   upon   considering   the   public   interest,   whether   it   is   a   case   of
retirement   by   the   Government   or   a   case   of   a   Government   servant
seeking   voluntary   retirement.     The   decision   rendered   in   Dinesh
Chandra   Sangma   (supra)   is   distinguishable   and   was   based   on   the
differently couched rule.  The Explanation added makes the provisions
different   in   the   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh.     The   decision   in   the   case   of
Dinesh   Chandra  Sangma  (supra)   cannot be  said  to   be  operative  being
quite distinguishable.

16
16. Reliance   has   also   been   placed   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the
respondents on the decision rendered by this Court in   B.J. Shelat vs.
State of Gujarat , (1978) 2 SCC 202.  The Court observed thus:
  “7.   Rule   161   of   the   Bombay  Civil   Services   Rules   provides   for
the retirement of Government servants before attaining the age
of superannuation. Rule 161(1)(aa) provides­
Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) :
(1)   An   appointing   authority   shall,   if   he   is   of   the
opinion   that   it   is   in   the   public   interest   so   to   do,
have the absolute right  to retire any Government
servant to whom clause  (a)  applies by giving him
notice of not less than three months in writing or
three months’ pay and allowances in lieu of such
notice:
* * * * *
Sub­rule (2)(ii) is as follows:
Any   Government   servant   to   whom   clause   (a)
applies   may,   by   giving   notice   of   not   less   than
three   months   in   writing   to   the   Appointing
Authority, retire from service … and in any other
case, after he has attained the age of 55 years.
There   is   no  dispute  that  the  Rule  applicable   is  Rule   161
(2)(ii) and the appellant is entitled to retire by giving a notice of
not   less   than   3   months   after   he   has   attained   the   age   of   55
years.   Under   Rule   161(1)(aa)(1)   the   appointing   authority   has
an   absolute   right   to   retire   any   Government   servant   to   whom
clause (a) applies in public interest by giving him notice of not
less   than   three   months   in   writing   or   three   months’   pay   and
allowances in lieu of such notice. But the Government servant
has   no   such   absolute   right.   A   right   is   conferred   on   the
Government   servant   under   Rule   161(2)(ii)   to   retire   by   giving
not   less   than   three   months’   notice   on   his   attaining   the
prescribed age. Such a right is subject to the proviso which is
incorporated   to   the                                 sub­section   which   reads   as
follows:
Provided   that   it   shall   be   open   to   the   appointing
authority   to   withhold   permission   to   retire   to   a
Government servant who is under suspension, or
against   whom   departmental   proceedings   are
pending or contemplated, and who seeks to retire
under this sub­clause.

17
But for the proviso, a  Government servant would be at liberty
to' retire by giving not less than three months’ notice in writing
to   the   appointing   authority   on   attaining   the   prescribed   age.
This   position   has   been   made   clear   by   this   Court   in   Dinesh
Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam, (1977) 4 SCC 441, where
the   Court   was   considering   the   effect   of   the   (Assam)
Fundamental   Rule   56(c)   which   confers   right   on   the
Government   servant   to   voluntary   retire.   Rule   56(c)   of   the
(Assam) Fundamental Rules runs as follows :
(c)   Any   Government   servant   may,   by   giving
notice   of   not   less   than   three   months   in   writing
to   the   appropriate   authority,   retire   from   service
after he has attained the age of fifty years or has
completed   25   years   of   service,   whichever   is
earlier.
On   a   construction   of   the   Rule   this   Court   held   that   the
condition of service which is envisaged in Rule 56(c) giving an
option   in   absolute   terms   to   a   Government   servant   to
voluntarily   retire   with   three   months'   previous   notice,   after   he
reaches   50   years   of  age  or  has  completed   25   years   of   service,
cannot be equated with a contract of employment as envisaged
in Explanation 2 to Rule 119 of the Defence of India Rules and
that   Rule   56   is   a   statutory   condition   which   operated   in   law
without reference to a contract of employment and when once
the   conditions   of   Fundamental   Rule   56(c)   are   fulfilled   the
Government servant must be held to have lawfully retired. But
for  the   proviso   to   Rule   161(2)(ii),   the   decision   of   this   Court   in
the   case   cited   above   would   be   applicable   and   the   right   would
have   been   absolute.   But   the   proviso   has   restricted   the   right
conferred   on   the   Government   servant.   Under   the   proviso   it   is
open   to   the   appointing   authority   to   withhold   permission   to
retire   to   a   Government   servant   when   (1)   he   is   under
suspension, or (2) against whom departmental proceedings are
pending or contemplated. Thus the permission to retire can be
withheld   by   the   appointing   authority   either   when   the
Government   servant   is   under   suspension   or   against   whom
departmental proceedings are pending or contemplated. It was
submitted   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   that   admittedly   he   was
not under suspension on the date when he attained the age of
55   years   and   that   no   departmental   proceedings   were   pending
or contemplated against him as required under the proviso. No
departmental   proceeding   was   pending   but   on   the   facts   one
cannot say that a proceeding was not under contemplation.
*** *** ***
9.   Mr.   Patel   next   referred   us   to   the   meaning   of   the   word
"withhold"   in   Webster's   Third   New   International   Dictionary
which   is   given   as   "hold   back"   and   submitted   that   the
permission should be deemed to have been withheld if it is not

18
communicated.   We   are   not   able   to   read   the   meaning   of   the
word   "withhold"   as   indicating   that   in   the   absence   of   a
communication   it   must   be   understood   as   the   permission
having been withheld.”
The   rule   which   came  up   for   consideration  in   B.J.   Shelat   (supra)
was   the   Rule   161   of   Bombay   Civil   Services   Rules,   1959.   The   Rule
161(1)   (aa)   provides   that   appointing   authority   may   retire   a
Government   servant   in   public   interest   by   giving   him   a   notice   of   not
less   than   three   months   or   three   months’   pay   and   allowances   in   lieu
thereof.   Rule 161(2)(ii) did not employ the word public interest when
the   Government   servant   seeks   voluntary   retirement.     This   has   been
added   to   the   Rule   applicable   in   the   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh.     Neither
there   is   any   provision   in   the   aforesaid   rules   that   require   to   pass   an
order   to   decide   an   application   by   a   Government   servant   seeking
voluntary   retirement   that   too   considering   the   public   interest.     Under
the   rules,   it   was   open   to   the   appointing   authority   to   withhold   the
permission to retire a Government servant who is under suspension or
against whom the departmental enquiry was pending or contemplated.
The rules considered by this Court in  B.J. Shelat (supra)  were different
and did not contain the provision like Explanation as incorporated in
the Fundamental Rule 56 as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
In that context, the discussion has been made and cannot be applied
to a rule differently couched in U.P.

19
17. Reliance was also placed on the decision rendered by this Court
in   State   of   Bombay   vs.   United   Motors,   AIR   1953   SC   252   and   Bengal
Immunity   vs.   State   of   Bihar,   AIR   1955   SC   661,   in   which   it   has   been
observed   that   Explanation   can   be   read   as   proviso   and   it   explain   the
scope  of the main provision and the Explanation  becomes part of the
main section.  There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition.  The
Explanation   in   rules   in   question   has   to   be   applied   to   both   the
situations as contemplated in Rule 56(c) and is applicable to both the
exigencies   not   only   when   Government   decides   to   retire   an   employee,
but   also   applicable   where   voluntary   retirement   is   sought   by   an
employee.  It cannot be said that no further restriction by explanation
has   been   added   in   a   case   where   an   employee   has   decided   to   obtain
voluntary   retirement.     The   public   interest   is   the   prime   consideration
on   which   authority   has   to   decide   such   a   prayer   as   per   the   rules
applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
18. It   was   also   urged   that   principles   of   certainty   of   rule   of   law   are
squarely applicable in the present case.   Reliance has been placed on
the   decision   of   State   of   Haryana   vs.   S.K.   Singhal,   (1999)   4   SCC   293.
This Court considered Rule 5.32(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules
and observed thus:
  “6.   The   said   rule   5.32(B)   of   the   Punjab   Civil   Service   Rules,
(Vol.II) reads as follows:
“Rule   5.32(B)(1)   At   any   time   a   government
employee   has   completed   twenty   years’   qualifying
service, he may, by giving notice of not less  than

20
three   months   in   writing   to   the   appointing
authority   retire   from   service.   However,   a
government   employee   may   make   a   request   in
writing   to   the   appointing   authority   to   accept
notice   of   less   than   three   months   giving   reason
therefor.   On   receipt   of   a   request,   the   appointing
authority   may   consider   such   request   for   the
curtailment   of   the   period   of   notice   of   three
months   on   merits   and   if   it   is   satisfied   that   the
curtailment  of  the   period  of  notice   will  not  cause
any administrative inconvenience,  the appointing
authority   may   relax   the   requirement   of   notice   of
three   months   on   the   condition   that   the
government   employee   shall   not   apply   for
commutation   of   a   part   of   his   pension   before   the
expiry of the period of notice of three months.
(2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under
sub­rule   (1)   shall   require   acceptance   by   the
appointing   authority   subject   to   Rule   2.2,   of
Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol.II :
Provided   that   where   the   appointing   authority
does   not   refuse   to   grant   the   permission   for
retirement   before   the   expiry   of   the   period
specified   in   sub­rule   (1)   supra,   the   retirement
shall   become   effective   from   the   date   of   expiry   of
the said period:
Provided   further   that   before   a   government
employee   gives   notice   of   voluntary   retirement
with   reference   to   sub­rule   (1)   he   should   satisfy
himself   by   means   of   a   reference   to   the
appropriate   authority   that   he   has,   in   fact,
completed   twenty   years’   service   qualifying   for
pension.”
*** *** ***
8.   It   will   be   noticed   that   under   Rule   5.32(B),   a   government
employee   who   has   completed   20   years   of   qualifying   service
may,   by   giving   notice   of   not   less   than   3   months   in   writing   to
the appointing authority, retire from service. There is provision
for   requesting   for   relaxation   of   the   notice   period   of   3   months
and   for   consideration   thereof.   As   to   what   the   appointing
authority   is   to   do   is   governed   squarely   by   sub­rule   (2).   That
sub­rule   states   that   the   notice   of   voluntary   retirement   given
under sub­rule (1) "shall" require acceptance by the appointing
authority subject to Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules
(Vol.II). Acceptance of the request is subject to Rule 2.2 of the
Rules.   But   the   proviso   to   sub­rule   (2)   of   Rule   5.32(B)   states
that if the permission to retire is not refused within the period

21
specified   in  sub­rule  (1),  the   retirement  shall   become   effective
from the date of expiry of the period. Therefore, it is clear that
if a  person has  completed 20 years  qualifying service and  has
given a notice under Rule 5.32(B) of 3 months (or if his request
for relaxation of 3 months is accepted), then the request "shall"
be accepted subject to invoking the provision of Rule 2.2 of the
Punjab Civil Services Rules (Vol.II). Under Rule 2.2, the "future
good conduct" of an employee is an implied condition of every
grant of pension. In other words, what all it means is that even
if   the   acceptance   of   the   voluntary   retirement   is   mandatory,
there is an obligation cast on the retired employee to maintain
good   conduct   after   such   retirement.   The   words   "future   good
conduct"  mean good  conduct after retirement. If  the  employee
does   not   continue   to   maintain   good   conduct   after   retirement,
then the Government can withhold or withdraw the pension or
a  part  of  it  in  case  he is  convicted   of  serious  crime  or  in  case
he be guilty of grave misconduct. Such  a decision  to  withhold
or   withdraw   the   whole   or   part   of   pension   would   be   final   and
conclusive, that is to say, so far as the governmental hierarchy
is concerned. It will be noticed that Rule 2.2 does not obstruct
the   voluntary   retirement   to   come   into   force   automatically   on
the   expiry   of   3   months   and   it   only   enables   withdrawal   or
withholding   of   pension   subject   to   certain   conditions,   to   a
retired employee.
9.   The   employment   of   government   servants   is   governed   by
rules.   These   rules   provide   a   particular   age   as   the   age   of
superannuation.   Nonetheless,   the   rules   confer   a   right   on   the
Government to compulsorily retire an employee before the age
of   superannuation   provided   the   employee   has   reached   a
particular   age   or  has   completed   a   particular   number   of   years
of qualifying service in case it is found that his service has not
been   found   to   be   satisfactory.   The   rules   also   provide   that   an
employee   who   has   completed   the   said   number   of   years   in   his
age   or   who   has   completed   the   prescribed   number   of   years   of
qualifying  service   could   give   notice   of,   say,   three   months   that
he   would   voluntarily  retire   on   the   expiry   of   the   said   period   of
three   months.   Some   Rules   are   couched   in   language   which
results in an automatic retirement of the employee upon expiry
of   the   period   specified   in   the   employee's   notice.   On   the   other
hand, certain rules in some other departments are couched in
language   which   makes   it   clear   that   even   upon   expiry   of   the
period  specified   in  the   notice,   the   retirement   is   not  automatic
and an express order granting permission is required and has
to be communicated. The relationship of master and servant in
the   latter   type   of   rules   continues   after   the   period   specified   in
the   notice   till   such   acceptance   is   communicated;   refusal   of
permission   could   also   be   communicated   after   3   months   and
the   employee   continues   to   be   in   service.   Cases   like   Dinesh
Chandra   Sangma   v.   State   of   Assam,   (1977)   4   SCC   441,   B.J.
Shelat   v.   State   of   Gujarat,   (1978)   2   SCC   202   and   Union   of

22
India v. Sayed Muzaffar Mir, (1995) Supp (1) SCC 76 belong to
the former category where it is held that upon the expiry of the
period,   the   voluntary   retirement   takes   effect   automatically   as
no  order  of   refusal   is   passed   within   the   notice   period.   On   the
other hand H.P. Horticultural Produce Marketing & Processing
Corpn.   Ltd.   v.   Suman   Behari   Sharma,   (1996)   4   SCC   584
belongs   to   the   second   category   where   the   bye­laws   were
interpreted as not giving an option "to retire" but only provided
a   limited   right   to   "seek"   retirement   thereby  implying  the   need
for   a   consent   of   the   employer   even   if   the   period   of   the   notice
has   elapsed.   We   shall   refer   to   these   two   categories   in   some
detail.
*** *** ***
13. Thus, from the aforesaid three decisions it is clear that
if   the   right   to   voluntarily   retirement   is   conferred   in   absolute
terms   as   in   Dinesh   Chandra   Sangma   case   by   the   relevant
rules and there is no provision in rules to withhold permission
in   certain   contingencies   the   voluntary   retirement   comes   into
effect automatically on the expiry of the period specified in the
notice.   If,   however,   as   in   B.J.   Shelat   case   and   as   in   Sayed
Muzaffar   Mir   case,   the   concerned   authority   is   empowered   to
withhold permission to retire if certain conditions exist, viz., in
case   the   employee   is   under   suspension   or   in   case   a
departmental enquiry is pending or is contemplated, the mere
pendency   of   the   suspension   or   departmental   enquiry   or   its
contemplation   does   not   result   in   the   notice   for   voluntary
retirement   not   coming   into   effect   on   expiry   of   the   period
specified.   What   is   further   needed   is   that   the   concerned
authority   concerned   must   pass   a   positive   order   withholding
permission   to   retire   and   must   also   communicate   the   same   to
the   employee   as   stated   in   B.J.   Shelat     case   and   in   Sayed
Muzaffar   Mir   case   before   the   expiry   of   the   notice   period.
Consequently,   there   is   no   requirement   of   an   order   of
acceptance   of  the  notice   to  be   communicated  to  the  employee
nor   can   it   be   said   that   non­communication   of   acceptance
should be treated as amounting to withholding of permission.
*** *** ***
18. In   the   case   before   us   sub­rule   (1)   of   Rule   5.32(B)
contemplates   a   “notice   to   retire”   and   not   a   request   seeking
permission to retire. The further "request" contemplated by the
sub­rule   is   only   for   seeking   exemption   from   the   3   months’
period.   The   proviso   to   sub­rule   (2)   makes   a   positive   provision
that   "where   the   appointing   authority   does   not   refuse   to   grant
the   permission   for   retirement   before   the   expiry   of   the   period
specified in Sub­rule (1), the retirement shall become  effective
from   the   date   of   expiry   of   the   said   period.   The   case   before   us
stands   on   a   stronger   footing   than   Dinesh   Chandra   Sangma
case   so   far   as   the   employee   is   concerned.   As   already   stated

23
Rule  2.2  of  Punjab  Civil  Service   Rules  Vol.II  only  deals  with  a
situation   of   withholding   or   withdrawing   pension   to   a   person
who has already retired.”
19. Rule   5.32(b)(2)   of   Punjab   Rules   clearly   provide   that   where   the
appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission to retire
before   the   expiry   of   the   period   in   sub­rule   (1),   the   retirement   shall
become effective from the date of the expiry of the said date.   There is
no   such   provision   of   notice   becoming   effective   from   the   date   of   the
expiry   of   the   period   in   the   Fundamental   Rules   as   applicable   to   the
State   of   Uttar   Pradesh.       In   the   context   of   the   proviso,   the   notice
becomes effective from the date of expiry of the period, in that context
this   Court   has   made   observations   in   the   aforesaid   dictum   that   Rule
2.2   does   not   obstruct   the   voluntary   retirement   to   come   into   force
automatically on the expiry of three months.
20.   In   the   State   of   Haryana   (supra) ,   this   Court   also   observed   that
some   rules   are   couched   in   language,   which   results   in   an   automatic
retirement   of   the   employee   upon   the   expiry   of   the   period   specified   in
the employee’s notice.  On the other hand, certain rules in some other
departments   are   couched   in   the   language   which   makes   it   clear   that
even upon expiry of the period specified in the notice, the retirement is
not   automatic   and   an   express   order   granting   permission   is   required
and has to be communicated.  The relationship of master and servant
in   the   latter   type   of   rules   continues   after   the   period   specified   in   the

24
notice   till   such   acceptance   is   communicated   and   the   refusal   of
permission   could   also   be   communicated   after   three   months   and   the
employee   continues   to   be   in   service.     It   is   the   aforesaid   later
observations made by this Court, which are squarely applicable to the
rule in question as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
21. In   Himachal   Pradesh   Horticultural   Produce   Marketing   &
Processing   Corporation   Ltd.   vs.   Suman   Behari   Sharma   (1996)   4   SCC
584,   the   Court   considered   the   language   employed   in   the   applicable
bye­laws.   It   was   observed   that   if   the   permission   for   voluntary
retirement   is   not   granted,   the   employee   would   not   be   able   to   retire.
The Court observed:
“8.   Clause   (2)   of   the   bye­law   inter   alia   provides   for   voluntary
retirement   from   service   of   HPMC   on   completion   of   25   years’
service or on attaining the age of 50 years whichever is earlier.
The employee,  however,  has a right to make  a  request in that
behalf   and   his   request   would   become   effective   only   if   he   is
'permitted'   to   retire.   The   words   "may   be...permitted   at   his
request"   clearly   indicate   that   the   said   clause   does   not   confer
on   the   employee   a   right   to   retire   on   completion   of   either   25
years’ service or on attaining the age of 50 years. It confers on
the employee a right to make a request to permit him to retire.
Obviously,   if   request   is   not   accepted   and   permission   is   not
granted   the   employee   will   not   be   able   to   retire   as   desired   by
him. Para (5) of the bye­law is in the nature of an exception to
para   (2)   and  permits   the  employee   who   has   not   completed   25
years’   service   or   has   attained   50   years   of   age   to   seek
retirement   if   he   has   completed   20   years’   satisfactory   service.
He   can   do   so   by   giving   three   months'   notice   in   writing.   The
contention   of   the   learned   Counsel   for  HPMC   was   that   though
para 5 of the bye­law relaxes the conditions prescribed by para
(2),   the   relaxation   is  only  with  respect  to  the   period  of  service
and   attainment   of   age   of   50   years   and   it   cannot   be   read   to
mean   that   the   requirement   of   permission   is   dispensed   with.
On   the   other   hand,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent
submitted   that   as   para   5   opens   with   the   words
"Notwithstanding  the   provision   under  para  (2)"  and  the  words
"may   be...permitted   at   his   request"   are   absent   that   would
mean that the employee has a right to retire after giving three

25
months'   notice   and   no   acceptance   of   such   a   request   is
necessary.  We  cannot agree  with the  interpretation canvassed
by   learned   counsel   for  the   respondent.   The   bye­law   has   to   be
read   as   a   whole.   Para   (2)   thereof   confers   a   right   on   the
employee  to request  for voluntary retirement on completion of
25   years’   service   or   on   attaining   the   age   of   50   years,   but   his
desire   would   materialise   only   if   he   is   permitted   to   retire   and
not   otherwise.   Ordinarily,   in   a   matter   like   this   an   employee
who has put in less number of years of service would not be on
a   better   fooling   than   the   employee   who   has   put   in   longer
service. It could not have been the intention of the rule­making
authority   while   framing   para   5   of   the   bye­law   to   confer   on
such   an   employee   a   better   and   a   larger   right   to   retire   after
giving   three   months'   notice   in   writing.   The   words   "seek
retirement" in para 5 indicate that the right which is conferred
by it is not the right to retire but a right to ask for retirement.
The   word   "seek"   implies   a   request   by   the   employee   and
corresponding   acceptance   or   permission   by   HPMC.   Therefore,
there   cannot   be   automatic   retirement   or   snapping   of   service
relationship on expiry of three months' period.”
22. In   Padubidri   Damodar   Shenoy   vs.   Indian   Airlines   Ltd.   &   Anr .
(2009)   10   SCC   514,   a   question   arose   of   voluntary   retirement   from
service   which   was   not   acceded   to   by   the   competent   authority   by
according approval. The matter travelled to this Court. It was held that
voluntary retirement did not come into force.  The Court observed:
“33.   There   is   nothing   to   indicate   in   Regulation   12   that   if
employer decides to withhold approval of voluntary retirement,
such   refusal   of   approval   must   be   communicated   to   the
petitioner  during  the   period   of  notice.   True   it  is  that   notice   of
three   months   for   voluntary   retirement   given   by   an   employee
covered by Clause (b) remains valid even if no communication
is   received   within   the   notice   period   but   it   becomes   effective
only on its approval by the competent authority. As a matter of
fact, this seems to have been understood by both the parties. 
34.   The   appellant   issued   a   notice   of   voluntary   retirement
under Regulation 12(b) on 30­9­2005. The notice period was to
expire   on           31­12­2005.   It   is   an   admitted   position   that   the
competent   authority   neither   gave   an   approval   nor   indicated
disapproval   to   the   appellant   within   the   notice   period   of   three
months.   The   employee   never   treated   that   there   has   been
cessation of employment on the expiry of three months’ notice
period inasmuch as he continued to attend his duties after 31­
12­2005   until   30­6­2006.   It   is   only   by   his   letter   dated   8­6­
2006   that   the   appellant   requested   the   respondent   to   relieve

26
him in terms of his notice dated 30­9­2005 by 30­6­2006 and
he stopped  attending work from 1­7­2006. The  letter dated 8­
6­2006   does   not   make   any   material   difference   as   the   fact   of
the   matter   is   that   after   the   expiry   of   the   notice   period,   the
appellant   continued   to   attend   his   duties   for   many   months
thereafter. 
35.   By   the   letter   dated   15­9­2006   the   respondent
communicated   to   the   appellant   that   his   application   for
voluntary   retirement   under   Service   Regulation   12(b)   has   not
been   acceded   to   by   the   competent   authority.   Since   the   notice
for voluntary retirement by an employee who has not attained
55   years   but   has   completed   20   years   of   continuous   service,
under  the   proviso   appended   to   Regulation   12(b),   is   subject   to
approval   by   the   competent   authority   and   that   approval   was
not   granted,   the   voluntary   retirement   of   the   appellant   never
came into effect.”
23. In  C.V. Francis vs. Union of India & Ors . (2013) 14 SCC 486, this
Court   observed   that   it   would   depend   upon   the   language   used   in   the
rule   whether   notice   for   voluntary   retirement   would   come   into   effect
automatically.   There   has   to   be   a   stipulation   in   the   scheme   providing
that   even   without   acceptance   of   his   application,   it   would   be   deemed
that the application for voluntary retirement had been accepted. There
is no  such  provision  in the  rules  in question.  In   C.V.   Francis   (supra),
this Court observed:
“13.   It   is   well­established   that   a   voluntary  retirement   scheme
introduced   by   a   company,   does   not   entitle   an   employee   as   a
matter   of   right   to   the   benefits   of   the   Scheme.   Whether   an
employee should be allowed to retire in terms of the scheme is
a decision which can only be taken by the employer company,
except in cases where the scheme itself provides for retirement
to   take   effect   when   the   notice   period   comes   to   an   end.   A
voluntary   retirement   scheme   introduced   by   a   company   is
essentially   a   part   of   the   company's   desire   to   weed   out   the
deadwood.
14.   The   petitioner's   contention   that   his   application   for
voluntary   retirement   came   into   effect   on   the   expiry   of   the
period   of   notice   given   by   him   must   fail,   since   there   was   no
such   stipulation   in   the   scheme   that   even   without   acceptance
of   his   application   it   would   be   deemed   that   the   petitioner's

27
voluntary retirement application had been accepted. Once that
is   not   accepted,   the   entire   case   of   the   petitioner   falls   to   the
ground. The decision in Tek Chand case (2001) 3 SCC 290 will
not,   therefore,   have   any   application   to   the   facts   of   this   case,
particularly   when   the   petitioner's   application   for   voluntary
retirement   had   not   been   accepted   and   he   had   been   asked   to
rejoin   his   services.   The   petitioner   was   fully   aware   of   this
position   as   he   continued   to   apply   for   leave   after   the   notice
period was over.”
24. Decision in   Tek Chand vs. Dile Ram   (2001) 3 SCC 290 has been
relied upon by the respondents. This Court considered Rule 48­A(2) of
the   Central   Civil   Services   (Pension)   Rules,   1972,   proviso   to   said   rule
contained a provision where the appointing authority did not refuse to
grant   the   permission   for   retirement   before   the   expiry   of   the   period
specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from
the   date   of   expiry   of   the   said   period.   The   relevant   observations   are
extracted hereunder:
“31.   It   is   not   disputed   that   the   appointing   authority   did   not
refuse   to   grant   the   permission   for   retirement   before   expiry   of
the   period   specified   in   the   said   application   dated   5.12.1994
given   by   Nikka   Ram.   Further,   no   communication   whatsoever
was made to him within the said period. During the course of
the   argument   before   the   High   Court,   the   learned   counsel   for
the   parties   referred   to   Rule   48­A   of   the   Rules,   of   course,
placing   their   own   interpretation.   Since   the   said   Rule   is
material and has bearing on the question to be determined, it
is extracted below:
        "48­A.   Retirement   on   completion   of   20   years’
qualifying   service.   ­   (1)   At   any   time   after   a
government   servant   has   completed   twenty   years'
qualifying   service,   he   may,   by   giving   notice   of   not
less than three  months in writing to the appointing
authority, retire from service:
Provided   that   this   sub­rule   shall   not   apply   to   a
government servant, including scientist or technical
expert who is ­
(i)   on   assignments   under   the   Indian   Technical   and
Economic   Cooperation   (ITEC)   Programme   of   the

28
Ministry   of   External   Affairs   and   other   aid
programmes.
(ii)   posted   abroad   in   foreign­based   offices   of   the
Ministries / Departments.
(iii)   on   a   specific   contract   assignment   to   a   foreign
Government,   unless,   after   having   been   transferred
to   India,   he   has   resumed   the   charge   of   the   post   in
India   and   served   for   a   period   of   not   less   than   one
year.
(2)   The   notice   of   voluntary   retirement   given   under
sub­rule   (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   become   effective   from
the date of expiry of the said period.”
*** *** ***
33. It is clear from sub­rule (2) of the Rule that the appointing
authority   is   required   to   accept   the   notice   of   voluntary
retirement   given   under   sub­rule   (1).   It   is   open   to   the
appointing   authority   to   refuse   also,   on   whatever   grounds
available  to  it,  but  such  refusal   has   to  be   before   the  expiry of
the period specified in the notice. The proviso to sub­rule (2) is
clear and certain in its terms. If 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
sought for becomes effective from the date of expiry of the said
period.   In   this   case,   admittedly,   the   appointing   authority   did
not refuse to grant the permission for retirement to Nikka Ram
before   the   expiry   of   the   period   specified   in   the   notice   dated
5.12.1994.   The   learned   Senior   Counsel   for   the   respondent
argued   that   the   acceptance   of   voluntary   retirement   by
appointing authority in all cases is mandatory. In the absence
of such express acceptance the government servant continues
to   be   in   service.   In   support   of   this   submission,   he   drew   our
attention   to   Rule   56(k)   of   Fundamental   Rules.   He   also
submitted that acceptance may be on a later date, that is, even
after   the   expiry   of   the   period   specified   in   the   notice   and   the
retirement   could   be   effective   from   the   date   specified   in   the
notice. Since the proviso to sub­rule (2) of Rule 48­A is clear in
itself and the said Rule 48­A is self­contained, in our opinion,
it   is   unnecessary   to   look   to   other   provisions,   more   so   in   the
light   of   law   laid   down   by   this   Court.   An   argument   that
acceptance can be even long after the date of the expiry of the
period specified in the notice and that the voluntary retirement
may become effective from the date specified in the notice, will
lead to anomalous situation. Take a case, if an application for

29
voluntary retirement is  accepted few  years  later from the date
specified   in   the   notice   and   voluntary   retirement   becomes
operative   from   the   date   of   expiry   of   the   notice   period   itself,
what   would   be   the   position   or   status   of   such   a   government
servant during the period from the date of expiry of the notice
period up to the date of acceptance of the voluntary retirement
by the appointing authority? One either continues in service or
does   not   continue   in   service.   It   cannot   be   both   that   the
voluntary  retirement could be effective from  the date  of expiry
of   the   period   mentioned   in   the   notice   and   still   a   Government
servant   could   continue   in   service   till   the   voluntary  retirement
is   accepted.   The   proviso   to   sub­rule   (2)   of   Rule   48­A   of   the
Rules does not admit such situation.”
*** *** ***
35.   In   our   view,   this   judgment   fully   supports   the   contention
urged   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   in   this   regard.   In   this
judgment, it is observed that there are three categories of rules
relating   to   seeking   of   voluntary   retirement   after  notice.   In   the
first   category,   voluntary   retirement   automatically   comes   into
force   on   expiry   of   notice   period.   In   the   second   category   also,
retirement   comes   into   force   unless   an   order   is   passed   during
notice period withholding permission to retire and in the third
category voluntary retirement does  not come into force unless
permission to this effect is granted by the competent authority.
In   such   a   case,   refusal   of   permission   can   be   communicated
even   after  the  expiry  of  the  notice   period.   It   all  depends   upon
the   relevant   rules.   In   the   case   decided,   the   relevant   Rule
required acceptance of notice by appointing authority and the
proviso   to   the   Rule   further   laid   down   that   retirement   shall
come   into   force   automatically   if   the   appointing   authority   did
not   refuse   permission   during   the   notice   period.   Refusal   was
not communicated  to the respondent during the notice  period
and   the   Court   held   that   voluntary   retirement   came   into   force
on  expiry  of the notice  period and subsequent order conveyed
to  him  that  he  could  not  be   deemed  to  have   voluntary  retired
had   no   effect.   The   present   case   is   almost   identical   to   the   one
decided by this Court in the aforesaid decision.”
The rule which came up for consideration was entirely different.
There is no provision contained in rule in question in the case at hand
like   the   proviso   to   Rule   48­A(2)   referred   to   above   due   to   which   the
retirement   shall   become   effective   from   the   date   of   expiry   of   period   of
notice in case the same was not refused.    
    

30
25. In   our   considered   opinion,   under   Rule   56   as   applicable   in   the
State   of   Uttar   Pradesh,   notice   of   voluntary   retirement   does   not   come
into   effect   automatically   on   the   expiry   of   the   three   months   period.
Under the rule in question, the appointing authority has to accept the
notice   for   voluntary   retirement   or   it   can   be   refused   on   permissible
grounds.
26. In our opinion, the Rule 56(c) does not fall in the category where
there   is   an   absolute   right   on   the   employee   to   seek   voluntary
retirement.     In   view   of   the   aforesaid   dictum   and   what   is   held   by   this
Court,   we   find   that   the   prayer   made   to   make   a   reference   to   a   larger
Bench,   in   case   this   Court   does   not   follow   the   earlier   decision   is
entirely devoid of merit as on the basis of what has been held by this
Court in the earlier decisions, we have arrived at the conclusion.   This
Court has authoritatively laid down the law umpteen number of time. 
27. Reliance   has   also   been   placed   on   behalf   of   respondents   on   the
decision in   Mahant Dhanmir vs. Madan Mohan,   (1987) Supp SCC 528,
in which this Court observed that law should not be unsettled unless
there   are   compelling   reasons.     There   is   no   dispute   that   the   said
proposition   has   already   been   held.     There   is   no   question   of   law
unsettling   the   law   but   is   of   its   application,   which   unfortunately
appears as against the interests of the respondents in view of language
employed in the rule in question.   An attempt in vain has been made

31
by   the   respondents   to   wriggle   out   of   the   clutches   of   the   various
decisions by raising the aforesaid argument.
28. It   was   also   urged   that   the   Rule   56(c)   does   not   require   the
employee   to   give   reasons   for   voluntary   retirement.     No   doubt   under
Rule 56(c) there is no requirement for an employee to give any reason,
however, while considering the prayer, the appointing authority has to
keep   in   mind   the   public   interest   as   provided   in   the   Explanation
attached to F.R. 56.
29. Learned   counsel   also   urged   that   outside   the   proviso   to   Rule
56(d),   there   is   no   general   right   of   appointing   authority   to   reject   the
notice of voluntary retirement of an employee on the ground of public
interest.     For   this   purpose,   threefold   submission   has   been   made.
Firstly,   that   the   principle   of   liberty   under   the   Constitution   and
specifically Part III of the Constitution requires that any restriction on
freedom   and   liberty   must   have   the   sanction   of   the   law   and   that   law
must   be   just,   fair   and   reasonable.     Presently,   there   is   no   law   as
enacted  under  Article  309 of the  Constitution.   Secondly,  the  right of
Government   employee   and   that   of   the   Government   are   delineated   in
terms   of   Fundamental   Rules   governing   State   Government   employees.
Thus,   if   any   Fundamental   Rules   do   not   restrict   the   general   liberty   of
an employee or do not empower the employer to act in a certain way,
an   action   otherwise   would   be   impermissible.     For   this   purpose,

32
reliance   has   been   placed   on   Moti   Ram   Deka   vs.   G.M.,   North   East
Frontier Railway,  (1964) 5 SCR 683.  It was also submitted that public
interest restriction that applies to the State in the case of compulsory
retirement, applies on account of Article 311.  The Court observed:
27.     In   this   connection,   it   is   necessary   to   emphasise   that   the
rule­making   authority   contemplated   by   Art.   309   cannot   be
validly exercised so as to curtail or affect the rights guaranteed
to public servants under Art. 311(1). Art. 311(1) is intended to
afford   a   sense   of   security   to   public   servants   who   are
substantively   appointed   to   a   permanent   post   and   one   of   the
principal   benefits   which   they   are   entitled   to   expect   is   the
benefit of pension after rendering public service for the period
prescribed   by  the   Rules.   It   would,   we   think,   not   be   legitimate
to contend that the right to earn a pension to which a servant
substantively appointed to a permanent post is entitled can be
curtailed   by   Rules   framed   under   Art.   309   so   as   to   make   the
said   right   either   ineffective   or   illusory.   Once   the   scope   of   Art.
311(1) and (2) is duly determined, it must be held that no Rule
framed   under  Art.   309   can   trespass   on   the   rights   guaranteed
by  Art. 311. This position is of basic importance and must be
borne   in   mind   in   dealing   with   the   controversy   in   the   present
appeals.
30. The reliance placed on   Moti Ram Deka (supra)   is of no avail as it
has no application to the instant case as no right conferred by Article
311   of   the   Constitution   can   be   said   to   have   been   taken   away   and
service  rule dehors  of it can provide for the concept of public interest.
31. There is no doubt about it that Rule 56(d) provides that where a
disciplinary   enquiry   is   pending   or   contemplated   and   in   the   case   of
contemplated   disciplinary   enquiry,   the   Government   servant   shall   be
informed before the expiry of notice that it has not been accepted.  The
proviso  to  Rule  56(d)  has  no  application  where  a disciplinary  enquiry

33
is   not   contemplated   or   pending.     When   the   proviso   itself   is   not
applicable, in no case it will dilute the provisions of Explanation with
respect to exigencies mentioned in clause (c) of Rule 56.
32. The   submission   made   upon   principle   of   liberty   and   its
curtailment, the law must be just, fair and reasonable can also not be
accepted as the Fundamental Rules are statutory rules and have been
made   by   the   Governor   under   section   241(2)(b)   of   the   Government   of
India Act,1935 and provisions of rule in question cannot be said to be
unfair, unreasonable and oppressive.
33. The   concept   of   liberty   not   to   serve   when   the   public   interest
requires   cannot   be   attracted   as   retirement   which   carries   pecuniary
benefits   can   be   subject   to   certain   riders.     The   general   public   has   the
right   to   obtain   treatment   from   super   skilled   specialists,   not   second
rates.   In   Jagadish   Saran   vs.   Union   of   India,   (1980)   2   SCC   768,   the
Court observed thus:
"44.   Secondly,   and   more   importantly,   it   is   difficult   to
denounce   or   renounce   the   merit   criterion   when   the
selection   is   for   post­graduate   or   post­doctoral   courses
in   specialised   subjects….   To   sympathise   mawkishly
with   the   weaker   sections   by   selecting   sub­standard
candidates, is to punish society as a whole by denying
the prospect of excellence say in hospital service. Even
the poorest, when stricken by critical illness, needs the
attention   of   super­skilled   specialists,   not   humdrum
second­rates.   So   it   is   that   relaxation   on   merit,   by
overruling   equality   and   quality   altogether,   is   a   social
risk where the stage is post­graduate or post­doctoral.”

34
34. The   concept   of   public   interest   can   also   be   invoked   by   the
Government when voluntary retirement sought by an employee, would
be   against   the   public   interest.     The   provisions   cannot   be   said   to   be
violative of any of the rights. There is already paucity of the doctors as
observed   by   the   High   Court,   the   system   cannot   be   left   without
competent   senior   persons   and   particularly,   the   High   Court   has   itself
observed that doctors are not being attracted to join services and there
is   an   existing   scarcity   of   the   doctors.     Poorest   of   the   poor   obtain
treatment   at   the   Government   hospitals.     They   cannot   be   put   at   the
peril, even when certain doctors are posted against the administrative
posts.  It is not that they have been posted against their seniority or to
the   other   cadre.     Somebody   has   to   man   these   administrative   posts
also, which are absolutely necessary to run the medical services which
are part and parcel of the right to life itself. In the instant case, where
the   right   of   the   public   are   involved   in   obtaining   treatment,   the   State
Government   has   taken   a   decision   as   per   Explanations   to   decline   the
prayer   for   voluntary   retirement   considering   the   public   interest.     It
cannot  be   said   that  State   has   committed  any  illegality   or  its   decision
suffers from any vice of arbitrariness.  
35. The decision of the Government cater to the needs of the human
life   and   carry   the   objectives   of   public   interest.   The   respondents   are
claiming the right to retire under Part III of the Constitution such right
cannot   be   supreme   than   right   to   life.   It   has   to   be   interpreted   along

35
with the rights of the State Government in Part IV of the Constitution
as   it   is   obligatory   upon   the   State   Government   to   make   an   endeavour
under  Article  47 to   look  after  the  provisions  for  health  and  nutrition.
The fundamental duties itself are enshrined under Article 51(A) which
require   observance.     The   right   under   Article   19(1)(g)   is   subject   to   the
interest   of   the   general   public   and   once   service   has   been   joined,   the
right   can   only   be   exercised   as   per   rules   and   not   otherwise.     Such
conditions   of   service   made   in   public   interest   cannot   be   said   to   be
illegal  or arbitrary or taking away the right of liberty.   The provisions
of the rule in question cannot be said to be against the Constitutional
provisions.     In   case   of   voluntary   retirement,   gratuity,   pensions,   and
other  dues  etc.  are  payable  to  the  employee  in   accordance  with  rules
and   when   there   is   a   requirement   of   the   services   of   an   employee,   the
appointing authority may exercise its right not to accept the prayer for
voluntary retirement.  In case all the doctors are permitted to retire, in
that situation, there would be a chaos and no doctor would be left in
the Government hospitals, which would be against the concept of the
welfare state and injurious to public interest.  In the case of voluntary
retirement, there is a provision in Rule 56 that a Government servant
may  be extended  benefit of  an  additional  period  of  five  years  then  an
actual   period   of   service   rendered   by   him   there   is   the   corresponding
obligation to serve in dire need.

36
36. It   was   urged   that   in   the   State   of   Tamil   Nadu,   Government   has
amended   the   rules   not   to   retire   Government   doctors,   if   there   is   any
scarcity   of   doctors   it   is   open   to   the   Government   of   Uttar   Pradesh   to
amend its rules.  In India, the Government sponsored Medical Services
to   cater   to   the   needs   of   poorest   of   the   poor   and   have­nots   otherwise
there is the commercialisation of the charitable medical profession.  In
other States too, it is seen sometime that when a doctor is transferred
from   one   place   to   another,   the   doctor   forwards   application   resigning
from   the   post   or   seeks   voluntary   retirement   as   he   does   not   want   to
move   out   and   leave   his   lucrative   private   practice   and   joins   the   duty
only when he obtains posting back to the place of his choice.  In such
a scenario people cannot be deprived of the services of good doctors. In
view   of   the   scarcity   of   the   doctors   and   the   unfortunate   privatisation
and   commercialisation   of   the   noble   medical   profession,   for
maintaining   the   efficiency   of   the   State   Medical   Services,   the   decision
taken   by   the   Government   is   permissible   as   per   rules   and   cannot   be
interfered with.  Unfortunately, the High Court has given the aforesaid
observations   pointing   out   the   shortage   of   specialised   doctors   and   at
the   same   time   has   ultimately   decided   against   the   State   Government
on wrong interpretation without considering the Explanation attached
to Rule 56 applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh.  The preface given
by  the  High  Court is just opposite to  its  conclusion.   The  High Court

37
ought   to   have   rejected   and   not   to   allow   the   prayer   of   voluntary
retirement made by the doctors.
37. It   was   urged   that   some   of   the   doctors   suffered   from   neck   pain
etc.   as   such   prayer   ought   to   have   been   accepted   but   they   have   not
given any such serious ailments which may make their functioning in
the   hospital   difficult   in   any   manner   whatsoever.     It   was   the   pretext
that   was   used   by   them   to   seek   voluntary   retirement.   It   is   for   the
Government to consider the efficacy. Doctors too have right under the
Rights   of   Persons   with   Disabilities   Act,   2016,   they   can   continue   in
services unfettered by such ailments.
38. Under Article 47 it is the duty of the State to improve the public
health,   which   is   a   primary   duty   under   the   Directive   Principles   of   the
State   Policy   and   the   statutory   expression   which   may   be   enforced.
When we consider Article 51A containing Fundamental Duties, it is a
duty of every citizen under Article 51A(g) to have compassion for living
creatures   and   to   have   humanism   is   also   contemplated   under   Article
51A(h) and to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and
collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of
endeavours and achievement.   It cannot be done by depriving poorest
of the poor essential medical services and to leave them at the mercy
of doctors.   There cannot be an exodus from the Government Medical
Services   at   large,   which   is   being   projected   in   the   instant   case,

38
definitely   this   cannot   be   permitted   to   happen   within   four   corners   of
law  as   it   has   to   be  living   organism   and   has   to   live   up   to   the   essence
and   spirit   of   constitution   and   cannot   ignore   and   overlook   needs   of
poorest strata of the society.
39.  It   was   urged   that   the   State   Government   is   discriminating
between   the   doctors   in   the   Provincial   Medical   Services   with   the
doctors   working   in   the   State­owned   Hospitals   and   Medical   Colleges.
In   the   Medical   Colleges   etc.   doctors   are   being   permitted   to   retire.
Instances of 7 doctors have been given, who were permitted to retire in
2016, 2017 and 2018.   Doctors of Medical Colleges are on a different
footing   than   that   of   Provincial   Medical   Services.     Even   otherwise   in
view   of   the   scarcity   of   the   doctors,   no   ground   of   equality   can   be
claimed and the doctors of different services form different class, apart
from that there is no concept of negative equality that too against the
public   interest.     In   case,   such   a   plea   is   allowed,   none   may   be   left   to
serve public at large. 
40. There   are   several   decisions   of   the   High   Court,   namely,   Dr.   Anil
Dewan   vs.   State   of   Punjab,   ILR   1   Punjab   &   Haryana   46;   State   of
Punjab   vs.   Dr.   Harbir   Singh   Dhillon ,  2010  SCC  Online   P&H  6159  and
Dr. Kalpana Singh vs. State of Rajasthan,  (2014) SCC Online Raj 6253,
were   cited   to   show   that   the   decision   in   Dinesh   Chandra   Sangma
(supra)  had been followed.  We have considered the aforesaid decisions

39
and we find that it would depend upon the scheme of the Rules.  Each
and every judgment has to be considered in the light of the provisions
which   came   up   for   consideration   and   question   it   has   decided,
language employed in the rules, and it cannot be said to be of general
application   as   already   observed   by   this   Court   in   State   of   Haryana
(supra).  
41. It   was   also   contended   that   the   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   may
amend rules, in our opinion there is no such necessity in view of the
Explanation the State has already amended its rules so as to enable it
to   pass   an   order   with   respect   to   retirement   whether   it   is   at   the
instance of the Government or at the instance of the employee for both
the public interest is germane.
42.  The submission was also made with respect to the imposition of
moratorium period of one year on retirement and that there should be
the recruitment   of the doctors and thereafter acceptance of voluntary
retirement   by   the   State.     We   do   not   propose   to   venture   into   it.     The
action   of   the   State   Government   was   appropriate   in   disallowing   the
prayer   seeking   voluntary   retirement.     The   Government   may   fill   the
vacancies   if   any.   But   that   would   not   bring   doctors   of   experience   at
senior level and exodus of doctors cannot be permitted to weaken the
services   when   the   public   interest   requires   to   serve   for   the   sake   of
efficient   medical   profession   and   fulfil   Directive   Principles   of   State

40
Policy   once   they   found   statutory   expression   in   the   rules   cannot   be
made   mockery.     When   services   are   required,   denial   of   voluntary
retirement   is   permissible   under   the   Rules   applicable   in   the   State   of
Uttar Pradesh.
43. In   view   of   the   above,   we   allow   the   civil   appeals   and   hereby   set
aside   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court.
The applications for intervention and to implead stand allowed.
…………………………..J.
      (Arun Mishra)  
…………………………..J.
          (S. Abdul Nazeer)    
August 21, 2018.
New Delhi.