LexSTATE OF HARYANA versus S.K. SINGHAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF HARYANA v. S.K. SINGHAL APRIL 16, 1999 B [M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] Punjab Civil Service Rules (Vol. II) Rule 5. 32 B(2) proviso-Respondent after completing twenty years' qualifying service giving notice of voluntary retirement-Appointing authority not refusing permission for retirement within C three months' notice period-Whether on the express wording of the rule retirement became automatically effective from the expiry of the notice period- Held, yes The respondent joined service on June 4, 1975 and was working as D Medical Officer. On August 16, 1995 the respondent issued a notice to the appellant seeking voluntiary retirement. Under the proviso to sub-rule (2) to. Rule 5.32 B of the Punjab Civil Service Rules (Vol. JD, where the appointing authority did not refuse permission for retirement before the expiry of three months from the date of the notice, the retirement "shall become effective from the date of the expiry of the said period." E F G The appellant did not respond till after the expiry of the notice period but sent a telegram to the respondent on December 5, 1995 asking him to join duty. The respondent contended that his retirement had become effective from November 16, 1995 and there was no question of his joining duty. The Civil Surgeon by order dated December 13, 1995 negatived the contention. The respondent's writ petition was allowed by the High Court and the order of the Civil Surgeon was quashed. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : Sub-clause (1) of Rule 5.32B of the Punjab Service Rules contemplated a notice to retire' and not a request seeking permission to retire. The proviso to sub-clause (2) made a positive provision that where the appointing authority did not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in sub-rule (1), the retirement shall H become effective from the date of expiry of he said period. (726-E-FJ 714 STATE v. S.K. SINGHAL [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 715 Dinesh Chandra Sangama v. State of Assam, [1977) 4 SCC 441; B.J A She/at v. State of Gujarat, [1978) 2 SCC 202 and Union of India v. Sayed Muzaffar Mir, [1995) Supp. 1 SCC 76, followed. HPMC v. Suman Behari Sharma, [1996) 4 SCC 584 and Power Finance Corporation Ltd v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia, [1997] 4 SCC 280, distinguished. B Dr. Bal) it Singh v. State of Haryana, [1997) 1 SCC 754, dissented from. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2325 of 1999. From the Judgment and Order dated 12.9.97 of the Punjab and Haryana C High Court in C.W.P. No. 675of1999. Jasbeer Malik and Prem Malhotra for the Appellants . . Nidesh Gupta and Ms. Minakshi Vij for the Respondent. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. Leave granted. The appellant, State of Haryana has filed this appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in C.W.P. No. 675of1996 E dated 12.9.1997. By tha' Judgment, the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent'and quashed the order dated 13.12.95 of the Civil Surgeon. The Civil Surgeon in his order stated that the respondent-writ petitioner could not be deemed to have retired voluntarily w.e.f. 16.l l.95 pursuant to his notice dated 16.8.1995. The respondent had claimed that by virtue of the proviso to sub-clause (2) of Rule 5.32.B of the Punjab Civil F Service Rules (V ol.11), he must be deemed to have retired on the expiry of three months of notice issued after completion of 20 years qualifying service. The facts of the case are as follows. The respondent joined service on 4.6.1975. While he was working as Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Kaithal, the G respondent was transferred on 8.8.1995 as Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre Kharak Ramji, District Jind. The respondent joined at Jind on 16.8.95 and on the same date (i.e. 16.8.95), he issued a notice seeking voluntary retirement, and the letter was addressed to the Commissioner and Secretary, Health Department, Haryana, Chandigarh. He sent an advance copy to the Commissioner Secretary and presented the application to his departmental H 716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 2 S.C.R. A head, Civil Surgeon, Jind. There was no response from the concerned authorities till 16.11.1995. Government stated in its counter filed in the High ·· Court that the respondent was not allowed to retire w.e.f. 16.11.1995. ".as he was absent from duty and he did not perform his du
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.