Withdrawal of Voluntary Retirement request should be allowed as the statutes provides for the same : Kerala High Court
The case revolves around a petitioner who initially applied for voluntary retirement, seeking exemption from the three-month notice period. This request was granted, and the petitioner's retirement became effective from October 8, 2021, under Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Consequently, the petitioner's name was removed from the office's staff roster.
However subsequently when the petitioner attempted to retract the retirement request and sought to withdraw it. The authorities rejected this withdrawal request, citing the principle that once retirement becomes effective, it cannot be revoked. This decision was upheld by the Tribunal, which emphasized that withdrawal was only possible before formal approval.
Upon closer examination, the Court referred to Rule 48-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which outlines the process for such situations. The Court observed that the authority had expedited the required procedural steps in an unusually swift manner, rendering a genuine compassionate consideration impractical due to the rapidity. This observation led the Court to critique the lack of proper deliberation in granting the waiver of the notice period.
Highlighting a crucial legal aspect, the Court pointed out that Rule 48-A(4) includes a provision allowing withdrawal of retirement within a period of five days. The Court argued that this proviso necessitates that any such withdrawal request within the stipulated time frame should be granted without exceptions.
Consequently, the Court overturned the Tribunal's verdict, invalidating their decision to refuse the petitioner's withdrawal request. The Court directed the competent authority to restore the petitioner's employment status from October 8, 2021. It was clarified that although the petitioner wouldn't be entitled to receive salary for the period they were not actively working, this interval would still be taken into account for various retirement benefits.
As part of its ruling, the Court mandated that the reinstatement process must be executed within a one-month duration. Failure to adhere to this directive would trigger the petitioner's entitlement to receive both salary and other associated payments once the specified one-month period concludes.