C/SCA/17489/2017 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17489 of 2017 ========================================================== DILIPKUMAR KHIMAJIBHAI MENDAPARA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR HARDIK H PANDIT(5820) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. AKASH CHHAYA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA Date : 29/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the order dated 25.07.2014 by which the request of the petitioner to be permitted to retire voluntarily has been refused. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, he had submitted his request for voluntarily retirement on 24.08.2009 and he had also requested for waiver of the 3 month notice period and this request was rejected nearly 5 years thereafter and by virtue of the rule, which stipulated and a request for voluntary retirement, if not refused, is deemed to have been accepted on the expiry of 3 months. Learned Counsel submits that, the request for voluntary retirement is deemed to have been accepted on the expiry of 3 months from 24.08.2009 and the rejection under the impugned order would be non-est and it will have to be held that the petitioner had retired with effect from 24.11.2009 and C/SCA/17489/2017 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025 consequentially, the petitioner should be granted all the benefits accruing out of the said voluntary retirement. 3. Learned AGP on the other hand points out that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from 16.10.2006 till 17.08.2009 i.e. for a period of 3 years prior to the submission of his request for voluntary retirement. He submits that after submitting the request for voluntary retirement, also he did not wait for the outcome of the request and had in fact gone abroad without even obtaining the approval of his employer. It is also pointed out that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in the month of February, 2014 and the reply given by the petitioner was rejected. It is lastly pointed out that despite the rejection of the request in the year 2014, the present petition is filed only in the year 2017 i.e. after a period of 3 years and therefore there is absolutely no justification for entertaining this writ petition. 4. It is no doubt that the rule requires an express rejection of the request for voluntary retirement within a period of 3 months, failing which the request for voluntary retirement is deemed to have been accepted. However, such a rule will be applicable in the normal circumstances and not in a case where an employee has been absent for a period of 3 years unauthorizedly prior to the submission of the request for voluntary retirement. It is also to be noticed here that a request for voluntary retirement is a benefit given to long standing employees and this is not an absolute right. Further, an employee who seeks for voluntary retirement is C/SCA/17489/2017 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025 required to await the outcome of the said request, since it is the prerogative of the State to either accept or refuse such request. 5. In this case, the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent for three years prior to the submission of his request for voluntary retirement and in all probability apprehending some punitive action against him, he had submitted letter of voluntary retirement. The petitioner has approached this Court 3 years after his reply to the show cause notice was rejected and after the impugned order was passed. 6. These set of facts establish that the petitioner had abandoned his services in the year 2006 itself, and therefore the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief to the effect that his request for voluntary retirement was deemed to have been accepted on the expiry of 3 months from 24.08.2009. It is to be stated here that an employee does not have an absolute right to seek for voluntary retirement as an employee, such as the petitioner, cannot claimed that his request for voluntary retirement is deemed to have been accepted is the background of the fact that he was unauthorizedly absent for 3 years and his reply to the show cause notice was also rejected. 7. Consequently the present petition is dismissed. Rule, if any, is hereby discharged. (NSSG,J) Mehul Desai Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: MEHULKUMAR BHIMABHAI DESAI(HCD0075), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/07/2025 18:00:54