Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040017892025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/508/2025 Majay Mara Son of Late Tanam Mara, Lomtak Mara Village, PO and PS Taliha, Upper Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and Anr represented by the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Agriculture Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun Advocate for the Petitioner : Duge Soki, Advocate for the Respondent : Lissing Perme, SC (Agriculture) Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 03-11-2025 Heard Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. Perme, learned Standing Counsel for the Agriculture Department for all the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the non-consideration and pendency of his application for voluntary retirement from service. It is stated and submitted that the petitioner joined as an Agricultural Filed Assistant (AFA-Junior) in the Department of Agriculture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh on 22.07.1996 and has completed 29 years of service in the Department. 3. It is stated that the petitioner submitted an application/notice for voluntary retirement from service under the VRS Scheme to the Block Development Officer (BDO), CD Block Taliha on 25.07.2025, as the petitioner was under the control of BDO at the relevant point of time. The said application was forwarded to the Director of Agriculture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, who is the appointing authority, on 28.07.2025 and the petitioner also submitted the forwarding letter along with his notice. In the meantime, the petitioner came to know that, as per the procedure, the notice under the VRS should be addressed to the Director, Department of Agriculture, who is the appointing authority and accordingly, the notice dated 30.07.2025 seeking voluntary retirement was issued by him to the Director, Agriculture. 4. It is stated and submitted that though the said voluntary retirement notice Page No.# 3/7 is required to be accepted within 3 (three) months, failing with there is a provision that the voluntary retirement would be deemed to be accepted - the respondents, despite the passage of more than three months, have not taken steps to release the petitioner. 5. Mr. L. Perme, learned Standing Counsel for the Agriculture Department was pleased to procure the official records regarding the matter and the same has been placed before this Court. 6. Before proceeding further, it is to be noted that the Rules governing the matter would be the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 specifically, Rule 43, which may be reproduced hereinbelow: “43. Retirement on completion of twenty years' qualifying service.- (1) At any time after a Government servant has completed twenty years' qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service and in the case of such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to a retiring pension calculated in accordance with rule 44: Provided that before giving notice of voluntary retirement, a Government servant shall request the appropriate administrative authority for a certificate regarding completion of qualifying service of twenty years on the intended date of retirement and the administrative authority shall issue the required certificate within fifteen days of such request by the Government servant and if no such certificate is issued by the administrative authority within the prescribed period of fifteen days, the Government servant may give the notice of voluntary retirement without such certificate: Provided further that before accepting the notice for voluntary retirement and passing orders in this regard, the appointing authority shall satisfy itself that the Government servant has completed the qualifying service of twenty years: Page No.# 4/7 Provided also that this sub-rule shall not apply to a Government servant, including scientist or technical expert who is,- (i) on assignments under the Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation (ITEC) Programme of the Ministry of External Affairs and other aid programmes; or (ii) posted abroad in foreign based offices of the Ministries or Departments; or (iii) on a specific contract assignment to a foreign Government, unless, after having been transferred to India, he has resumed the charge of the post in India and served for a period of not less than one year: Provided also that a Government servant shall be eligible to retire under this rule only if he has completed or will complete a qualifying service of twenty years on the intended date of retirement and the provision in sub-rule (7) of rule 44 for treating fraction of a year equal to three months and above as a completed six monthly period, shall not be applicable for the purpose of determining the qualifying service under this rule. (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority: Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. 7. Drawing attention to the aforesaid proviso to Rule 43 (2), the learned counsel submits that said proviso stipulates that if the appointing authority does not refuse permission for voluntary retirement before the expiry of the period - then the retirement shall become effective from the date of the expiry of the said period. Thus, it is clear from the said Rules that when the notice for voluntary retirement is given, the appointing authority has the administrative Page No.# 5/7 discretion to refuse permission for retirement before the expiry of the period. But when no such refusal is there, then the retirement becomes effective from the date of expiry of the period by way of deemed acceptance of the notice and the employee becomes voluntarily retired from the service. 8. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in Tai Nikio Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh (2019) 5 GLR 372. The relevant paragraph 27 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: “27. Therefore, in view of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of the rule 48A of the CCS (Pension) Rule, 1972, the appointing authority is required to accept the notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) and it is open to the appointing authority to refuse also on valid and cogent grounds and such refusal has to be before the expiry of the notice period specified in the notice. The said proviso is clear and certain in its term and if the authorities do not refuse to grant permission for retirement before the expiry of the period, the retirement sought for becomes effective from the date of expiry of the said period. In the instant case, the appointing authority did not decide to refuse to grant permission for voluntary retirement before the expiry of the period stipulated in the notice, and, therefore, the petitioner is deemed to have voluntarily retired on expiry of the notice period.” 9. I have perused the notice dated 30.07.2025 which was regarding permission for voluntary retirement from service which was given by the petitioner to the Director of Agriculture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, who is the appointing authority. Though the petitioner has annexed the relevant documents but the same are also available in the records and it is clear from the records that the vigilance clearance certificate and no objection certificate are also there. It also reveals from the case records that the petitioner, as an Page No.# 6/7 employee of the Department, has completed 29 years of continuous service in the department. Thus, admittedly, the petitioner meets the qualifying requirement of 20 (twenty) years under the Rules. No material has come to the notice of this Court or otherwise that the authority has refused permission to the petitioner regarding his prayer for voluntary retirement. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for the Agriculture Department submits that perhaps the notice and the connected documents came before the appointing authority (Director) only around 19.09.2025; therefore, perhaps the notice period is not over in calculating from the said date. 11. In this context, learned petitioner counsel points out from the materials that the authorities were already aware of the application/notice of the petitioner dated 30.07.2025. 12. I have given may anxious consideration to the matter; perused the relevant portions of the records and also considered the submissions of the learned counsels for both the sides. On the basis of the same, I come to the finding that in terms of the governing Rules (the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, specifically, the Rule 43) and also the judgment of this Court, in the case of Tai Nikio (Supra) – the petitioner having completed 29 years of continuous service and given a notice of his voluntary retirement, vide notice dated 30.07.2025, has completed the notice period of 3 (three) months and by virtue of proviso of Rule 43(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 is deemed to have retired voluntarily. 13. Thus, on the basis of materials and applicability of the governing Rules, the petitioner herein, namely, Shri Majay Mara, is hereby deemed to have voluntary retired from his service as Agricultural Filed Assistant (AFA-Junior), Page No.# 7/7 Department of Agriculture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. 14. Writ petition stands disposed of and allowed in terms of above. 15. The petitioner shall submit a certified copy of this judgment and order before the appointing authority i.e. the Director, Agriculture Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh as his earliest convenience and thereafter, the appointing authority/ respondents shall do the needful for passing any pertinent orders in this regard and release the petitioner from his service, forthwith. 16. Return the records. JUDGE Comparing Assistant