Employer Cannot Indefinitely Withhold Voluntary Retirement Without Valid Grounds: Delhi HC

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur ruled that an employer cannot indefinitely withhold voluntary retirement under Rule 56(k) of the Fundamental Rules. The court held that pending vigilance clearance or mere potential inquiries are not valid grounds for withholding retirement. It further clarified that the employer must communicate any rejection before the notice period expires; else, it would amount to deemed acceptance. Background Sandeep Gupta joined the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF) within BRO in 1995 as an Assistant Executive Engineer and was promoted to Superintending Engineer in 2017. After nearly three decades of service, he sought voluntary retirement citing health issues and family responsibilities. He applied for it under Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (“CCS Pension Rules”) and Rule 56(k) of the Fundamental Rules (“FRs”). However, his request was not processed despite multiple reminders. Aggrieved, Sandeep Gupta filed a writ petition. He argued that his voluntary retirement should be made effective on the expiry of the mandatory notice period. However, the union argued that the Legal Department has to first conduct a 'vigilance clearance', and that pending inquiries against him justified withholding his retirement request. Arguments Sandeep Gupta argued that he had satisfied all conditions under Rule 56(k) of the FRs. He submitted that under the rule, an employee's right to retire can only be withheld in specific circumstances (such as being under suspension or facing a charge sheet). He argued that none of these circumstances applied to his case. Further, citing State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Tai Nikio, 2019 SCC OnLine Gau 1392, and State of Haryana v. S.K. Singhal, (1999) 4 SCC 293, he argued that once the notice period ends without the employer's objection, retirement takes effect automatically. The union argued that voluntary retirement required 'vigilance clearance' from their Legal Department. They stated that Gupta had been a defense witness in an inquiry against another officer and was also subject to corruption allegations that could lead to a departmental inquiry. Additionally, a Court of Inquiry (COI) had been initiated regarding irregularities in his House Rent Allowance (HRA) claims. They argued that until these issues were resolved, processing the retirement request was not feasible. Court's findings Firstly, the court explained that Rule 56(k) of the FRs allows a government employee to retire after giving three months' notice. It noted that the rule permits withholding retirement only if the employee is under suspension, facing a charge sheet, or involved in judicial proceedings for grave misconduct. The court ruled that none of these conditions applied to Gupta. It held that pending vigilance clearance or a potential inquiry does not automatically justify withholding voluntary retirement. Secondly, the court noted that an employer must communicate any decision to withhold retirement before the notice period expires. It referred to the Tai Nikio case, and held that a failure to issue a formal rejection within the notice period results in deemed acceptance. The court further reiterated that if an employer intends to withhold permission, it must issue a written order before the expiry of the notice period. Since this was not done, the court ruled that Sandeep Gupta's voluntary retirement had already taken effect. Lastly, the court held that the union's reliance on pending inquiries was misplaced. It noted that the Court of Inquiry, HRA irregularities, and corruption allegations were not grounds under Rule 56(k) to withhold retirement. It clarified that the absence of a charge sheet meant that Gupta could not be denied his right to retire. Thus, the court allowed the writ petition. It directed the union to release Sandeep Gupta's pensionary and retiral benefits within two months. Decided on: 29-01-2025 Title: Sandeep Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 121 Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Tapas Das Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Sahaj Garg, SPC for UOI, with Mr. Shyam Singh Negi, HQ DGBR Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Employer Cannot Indefinitely Withhold Voluntary Retirement Without Valid Grounds: Delhi HC

Pranav Kumar

Tags