1977 (10) TMI 115 - SC - Indian Laws

Government servant's voluntary retirement rights upheld by Supreme Court under F.R. 56(c)

Dinesh Chandra Sangma Versus State of Assam

The Supreme Court held that under F.R. 56(c), a Government servant has the right to voluntarily retire by giving notice, without requiring the ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of voluntary retirement under F.R. 56(c).2. Applicability of Rule 119 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971 (DISI Rules).3. Government's authority to revoke permission for voluntary retirement.4. Legal status of the appellant's employment and its termination.Summary:1. Validity of Voluntary Retirement under F.R. 56(c):The appellant, a District and Sessions Judge, served a notice to the Government u/r F.R. 56(c) to voluntarily retire after attaining the age of 50 years. The Government initially allowed the retirement but later revoked this permission. The Supreme Court held that under F.R. 56(c), a Government servant has the right to voluntarily retire by giving three months' notice, and there is no requirement for the Government's acceptance of this request. The appellant lawfully retired as notified by him with effect from 2nd August, 1976.2. Applicability of Rule 119 of the DISI Rules:The Government argued that Rule 119 of the DISI Rules, which requires previous consent of the employer for termination of employment, was super-imposed on F.R. 56(c). The Supreme Court found that Rule 119, particularly Explanation 2, applies to contractual employment and not to statutory conditions of service like those under F.R. 56. Therefore, Rule 119 was not applicable to the appellant's case.3. Government's Authority to Revoke Permission for Voluntary Retirement:The Supreme Court held that the Government's order of July 28, 1976, revoking the permission for voluntary retirement, was ineffectual in law and null and void. The appellant had fulfilled the conditions of F.R. 56(c) and thus had lawfully retired.4. Legal Status of the Appellant's Employment and its Termination:The Court emphasized that the employment of a Government servant is a matter of status, not contract, and is governed by statutory rules. The appellant's voluntary retirement was in pursuance of a statutory rule, not an express or implied term of a contract of employment. The High Court's order transferring the appellant to Dhubri was invalid and quashed.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowed the writ petition, and ruled in favor of the appellant, confirming his lawful retirement from 2nd August, 1976. The appeal was allowed with costs in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.