Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Not Rejected Within Stipulated Period; Subsequent Demand For Technical Resignation Invalid: Delhi HC

Background Facts

The employee was working as a Pradhan Sahayak Engineer in the Indian Coast Guard. In 2016, he applied for the post of Senior Scientific Officer in the Directorate General of Aeronautical Quality Assurance (DGAQA) through the UPSC. After being recommended for the post, he submitted an application for voluntary retirement in June 2017, seeking for it to be effective from his date of appointment in the new role or within three months of acceptance, whichever was earlier.

The Coast Guard authorities did not expressly reject his application but repeatedly delayed its processing, later instructing him to submit a technical resignation. Therefore, he submitted his resignation in February 2018 and was subsequently discharged. Then he formally joined the DGAQA in March 2018.

The employee approached the High Court by filing a writ petition, contending that his voluntary retirement must be deemed to have taken effect automatically.

It was argued by the employee that as per the Office Memorandum, if an application for voluntary retirement is not rejected within three months from the date it is intended to take effect, it is presumed to have been accepted.

The employee asserted that his voluntary retirement became effective at the latest by 1st February 2018, as his appointment to the new post had been communicated to the Coast Guard by that date, and his retirement request had not been rejected. He argued that the subsequent demand from the respondents for a technical resignation was issued under compulsion and could not nullify his voluntary retirement. Therefore, he contended that he was entitled to be treated as voluntarily retired from service, with all consequential pensionary benefits.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondents that there was no presumption of automatic acceptance of employee's voluntary retirement after three months.

Findings of the Court

It was noted by the court that the employee had conditioned his voluntary retirement to take effect from his appointment in the DGAQA or within three months of acceptance, whichever was earlier. It was further observed that the respondents' communication did not constitute a rejection of the VRS application, but merely sought clarifications. The employee's appointment was communicated to the Coast Guard on 1 February 2018, and no rejection had been issued prior to that date, therefore, his voluntary retirement took effect from February 2018.

It was held by the court that the subsequent demand for a technical resignation and the employee's compelled compliance could not nullify a retirement that had already become effective. Consequently, the court declared the employee deemed to have voluntarily retired from 1 February 2018, which made him entitled to the pensionary benefits under Rule 48(A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. With these observations, the writ petition filed by the employee was allowed by the court.

Case Name : Rajesh Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1580

Case No. : W.P.(C) 10133/2020

Counsel for the Petitioner : Raj Singh Phogat, Adv

Counsel for the Respondents : Sahil Munjal, Sr. PC with Rhea Gandhi, Adv., T.P. Singh, Sr. CGSC