The Delhi High Court has reiterated that 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 the expiry of the period specified.

The Court directed the release of the pensionary and other retiral benefits for the Petitioner who sought voluntary retirement under Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (the Rules).

A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur explained that “the effect of Rule 56(k) is of a deemed acceptance of the notice given by a Government servant to voluntary retire on fulfilling the conditions as contained therein, provided however, that prior to the expiry of the notice period, the Government issues a notice rejecting the request of the Government Servant on the grounds mentioned in the Proviso to Rule 56(k). The Proviso to Rule 56(k), therefore, has restricted the right conferred on a Government servant.

Advocate Tapas Das represented the Petitioner, while SPC Sahaj Garg appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner sought voluntary retirement under Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 due to health challenges and responsibilities towards his ailing parents. He had submitted applications for voluntary retirement in December 2023 and January 2024, and subsequently sent a reminder in March 2024 for action. As no response was received, he submitted another application in March 2024, modifying his retirement date to April 2024.

The Petitioner approached the High Court, contending that since he had served over 31 years and 10 months in the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF) in BRO, he was entitled to be deemed retired in terms of Rule 56(k) of the Fundamental Rules (FRs), which provides that a government servant is automatically deemed retired upon the expiry of the three-month notice period unless the employer formally communicates a decision to withhold permission before the expiry of the notice period.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana v. S.K. Singhal (1999) wherein it was held that “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 the expiry of the period specified.

The Bench clarified that in the present case, the Petitioner was not under suspension nor any departmental proceedings or charge sheet was pending against him at the time of expiry of the notice period. “Though, the respondents have vaguely stated that a complaint alleging corruption was pending against the petitioner, and that there was a COI convened, in case the respondents contemplated any action against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint or the COI, the same should have been intimated to the petitioner clarifying that the respondents wanted to „withhold‟ the permission to accept his application of voluntary retirement,” it remarked.

Consequently, the Court held, “Accordingly, the notice of the voluntary retirement issued by the petitioner, as prayed by him, has become effective from 17.04.2024. Consequently, the petitioner shall be entitled for all the pensionary and other retiral benefits as per rules on his retirement on 17.04.2024. We, therefore, direct that the pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner be released by the respondents to him within a period of two months from the date of this order.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title: Sandeep Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:488:DB)

Click here to read/download the Judgment