The Delhi High Court has held that when a government employee applies for voluntary retirement under the applicable service rules, and the employer does not reject that application within the prescribed notice period, the retirement is deemed accepted automatically — and a later attempt to demand a “technical resignation” is invalid. The case in question involved an employee who submitted his notice of voluntary retirement and, after the notice period elapsed without any formal rejection, was considered to have retired by operation of law.
Under the Fundamental Rules (specifically, Rule 56(k)), a government servant may give notice of voluntary retirement. If the competent authority does not explicitly refuse the request during the notice period, then, according to the Court, retirement should take effect on the date specified in the notice. The employer’s silence — without a formal decision communicated in writing before the end of the notice period — amounts to acceptance of the retirement application by “deemed acceptance.”
In the facts of the case, the petitioner gave his required notice for voluntary retirement, and although the employer had grounds (or claimed grounds) to withhold permission — such as potential inquiry or pending complaints — it did not communicate a formal rejection within the stipulated timeline. The Court rejected any attempt by the employer to withhold retirement on the basis of these pending investigations, noting that merely contemplating a disciplinary proceeding, or having a complaint under consideration, is not sufficient to justify withholding voluntary retirement in the absence of a formal rejection communicated in time. The Court drew on precedent to clarify that only specific conditions — such as suspension, a formal charge-sheet, or judicial proceedings — justify withholding retirement under Rule 56(k).
Because no rejection was communicated by the employer before the expiry of the notice period, the Delhi High Court declared that the petitioner had, in effect, “retired” automatically with effect from the date he had specified in his notice. The Court held that any later attempt to demand a “technical resignation” from him was legally untenable. Since retirement had already been deemed accepted, the employer could not retrospectively recast the relationship as a resignation.
The Court also ordered that all retiral and pensionary benefits be processed and released to the petitioner. It directed the employer to pay out his entitled retirement dues — such as pension — in line with the relevant service rules. The High Court emphasized that procedural technicalities or delay in administrative processing should not be allowed to undermine an employee’s statutory right to retire, once the conditions for retirement are met and no rejection has been communicated in time.
This judgment reinforces an important principle: when public servants give notice for voluntary retirement and comply with the rule-based requirements, their notice must either be accepted or rejected within that period. Silence or inaction beyond that generates a “deemed acceptance.” The Delhi High Court’s decision underscores that responsibilities lie on the employer to act within the stipulated timeline, and that employees are entitled to rely on the rule of law rather than being trapped by administrative delays or retrospective reinterpretations.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.