C/SCA/14241/2017 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14241 of 2017 ========================================================== PRAVINCHANDRA HIRALAL PATEL & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK H PANDIT(5820) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3 MS DEVANSHIBA RANA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA Date : 24/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. These facts are not in dispute: (1) The petitioner was appointed on 15.6.1999 as a Junior Clerk in the respondent No.4 school, which is a Grant- in-Aid school. (2) The petitioner made an application on 1.10.2011 seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 31.12.2011. (3) On 17.1.2011, the petitioner proceeded on leave. (4) Though the petitioner had given a three months’ notice seeking for voluntary retirement, no orders were passed on his request till 29.7.2016. (5) The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging this rejection on this request for grant of C/SCA/14241/2017 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 voluntary retirement on the ground that the said order is in gross violation of the statutory Rules governing the voluntary retirement. 2. It is not in dispute that Rule 48 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 are applicable to the petitioner and the same reads as follows: “RULE 48: Retirement on completion of twenty years' qualifying service (1) A Government employee on completion of twenty years' qualifying service, may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. (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.” 3. As could be seen from the said Rule, a Government employee is required to give notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority expressing his desire to retire from service and if the permission sought for is not refused, the proviso to Rule 48 would come into effect and the voluntary retirement would become effective from the date of expiry of three months’ period. 4. In the reply, the respondents have stated as follows: C/SCA/14241/2017 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 “4.2 The petitioner has averred that the same faced difficulties after 2010 and hence, resolved to voluntary retire from active service and in order to further his such resolve preferred an application on 01.10.2011 for seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 31.12.2011. (refer Annexure C to the petition) 4.3 It shall be pertinent to take note that on and from 17.01.2011, which is /immediately after the service of notice dated 01.10.2011, the petitioner has proceeded on leave.” 5. It is, therefore, an admitted fact that the petitioner did give a notice seeking voluntary retirement and also gave a three months’ notice. In light of the proviso, it is obvious that the retirement of the petitioner became effective from 31.12.2011 and consequently, the rejection of this request 5 years thereafter is merely of no consequence and non est. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, however, contended that the petitioner had proceeded on leave without waiting for any orders being passed on his request for voluntary retirement and, therefore, no benefits can accrue to him by virtue of the proviso to Rule 48. 7. As already extracted above, the State has admitted that the petitioner had given a notice of three months which would expire on 31.12.2011. The proviso to Rule 48 is categorical that retirement would become effective from the date of expiry of 3 months period if the request is not refused. It is, therefore, clear that by operation of law itself, the petitioner’s retirement from C/SCA/14241/2017 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025 service became effective from 31.12.2021. This argument of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is therefore, without any merits. Consequently, the writ petition is ALLOWED. The impugned orders are quashed and it is hereby held that the petitioner’s retirement became effective from 31.12.2011 and as a consequence, the respondents shall compute all the benefits to which the petitioner was entitled to and make over the same to his legal heirs since the petitioner is no more. 8. This exercise shall be competed within a period of THREE MONTHS from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Rule is made made absolute accordingly. Direct Service is permitted. Sd/- (NSSG,J) OMKAR Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: OMKAR CHHAGANLAL MAHAWAR(HC00201), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 25/07/2025 10:54:21