1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1631 of 2023 1 - Dr. Rajesh Chandra S/o Late Haricharan Chandra Aged About 64 Years R/o Near Parsuram Chowk, Champa, Tahsil And P.S. Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health Family Welfare And Medical Education, Mantralya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Health Services, Indiravati Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Anti Corruption Burea Through Deputy Superintendent, Beside Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner:- Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate For State :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 2 01.12.2025 1. The present writ petition is being filed by the petitioner, who was appointed as a Medical Officer on 19.09.1983 and has rendered about 29 years of unblemished service under the respondent– State. On 22.03.2012, the petitioner submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement in the prescribed Form-28 under Rule 42(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Despite the petitioner fulfilling all statutory requirements and despite the absence of any departmental enquiry or criminal proceedings against him, the respondents neither accepted nor rejected his voluntary retirement request, resulting in the matter being kept pending for more than a decade without any justification. 2. By way of this petition, following reliefs have been prayed:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and direct the respondent No. 1 to release the funds with interest like gratuity, languishment, family benefit funds, GIS and GPF etc by treating the petitioner retire from the post of surgical specialist, Community health Center Malkharoda District Janjgir w. e. f on 21.06.2012, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.” 3 3. Facts of the case are that The petitioner, a citizen of India, was appointed as a Medical Officer on 19.09.1983 and, after rendering about 29 years of service, submitted an application on 22.03.2012 in the prescribed Form-28 under Rule 42(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 seeking voluntary retirement; however, despite expiry of the statutory notice period and repeated reminders, no order was passed on his request. On 26.06.2012, a raid was conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) at the residence of the petitioner and his wife, but during subsequent proceedings, including the report dated 17.04.2017 and the statement made before the Hon’ble High Court in CRR No. 476/2017, the ACB clarified that a closure report had been prepared and no criminal case was pending. Despite this, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Janjgir, directed that the petitioner’s retirement case be kept pending until conclusion of ACB proceedings. Even after the closure report and return of seized property, the petitioner’s pension and retiral benefits remained withheld, compelling him to submit repeated representations, including the latest dated 28.09.2022. In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.A. No. 620/2021 has reiterated that under Rule 42(1)(a) of the 1976 Rules, voluntary retirement is a unilateral act not requiring acceptance by the employer once the notice period expires, and the petitioner, being similarly situated, is constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court seeking appropriate relief. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application for voluntary retirement which was pending consideration. In the meantime, a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the petitioner, due to which the application could not be decided. He further submits that in the said case a closure report has been filed and, as such, the petitioner who has already left the service requires an appropriate order to be passed regarding his voluntary retirement, which is still pending. 5. Learned State Counsel, after seeking necessary instructions, submits that no objection has been filed by the respondent State against the said closure report. 6. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the State is directed to pass a formal order in respect of the voluntary retirement application submitted by the petitioner on 22.03.2012, in accordance with law. The needful shall be done within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha