HC: Employee deemed retired if request not rejected in given time
Once an employee gives a notice for voluntary retirement after 20 years of service and the authorities neither accept nor reject the request within the notice period, he is deemed to have retired after three months and is entitled to all service benefits, including pension.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed the principle while allowing a petition filed by a medical laboratory technician, whose request for premature retirement was denied after the stipulated period had elapsed.
Justice Aman Chaudhary made it clear that the petitioner’s premature retirement request, submitted on November 18, 2014, along with three months’ salary, should be deemed accepted as it was not rejected within the notice period.
The authorities only rejected the request on October 8, 2015, citing instructions issued on May 12, 2015, which were not applicable in his case since he had continued to serve until November 24, 2014. Consequently, the court held that he was deemed to have retired from service and was entitled to all retirement benefits.
After hearing counsel Dhiraj Chawla for the petitioner and relying on multiple legal precedents to reinforce its ruling, the Bench observed that the apex court in the “state of Haryana versus SK Singhal” case had held that the request for retirement became effective upon expiry of the notice period if the appointing authority did not refuse the same.
Similarly, in the “state of Punjab and others versus Dr Bhushan Lal Malhotra” case, a Division Bench held that the employee was deemed to have retired and entitled to pensionary benefits if no order was passed regarding the request for premature retirement.
In the case of “Dr Anil Dewan versus state through Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Punjab, and others”, it was reiterated that the rejection of voluntary retirement request after the notice period expired was inconsequential.
The court also examined Rule 3(3) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975, which permitted an employee with 20 years of qualifying service to seek premature retirement by giving a three-month notice.
If the competent authority did not refuse the request within the period, the retirement became effective automatically upon the expiry of the notice period.
Relying on the principles, the court concluded that the petitioner’s premature retirement was required to be considered valid, and he was entitled to all retirement benefits. The petition was disposed of in line with the judgment in Dr Bhushan Lal Malhotra’s case.
