[2026:RJ-JP:6962] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15541/2017 Dr. Ravidayal Gupta Son Of Shri Ramswaroop Gupta, R/o 138, Mohan Nagar, Hindaun Citi, District Karauli. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Heatlh, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director Public Health, Medical And Health Services, Health Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur. 3. The Additional Director Rajpatrit, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Health Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur. 4. The Chief Medical And Heatlh Officer, Jhalawar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Pathak Mr. Ganesh Dutt Sharma Ms. Pista Tak For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Verma and Ms. Swikriti Sharma for Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 13/02/2026 1. The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner with following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your lordships may kindly be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 10.07.2017 (Annexure No. 14) passed by the Additional Director (Rajpatrit), Medical and Health Service, Rajasthan, Jaipur may kindly be quashed and set aside and the Respondents may kindly directed to treat the Petitioners as voluntary retired [2026:RJ-JP:6962] (2 of 10) [CW-15541/2017] automatically w.e.f. 31.03.2017 and further Respondents may also kindly be directed to pay the retiral dues (Pension as well as Grauity etc. as admissible under law) along with interest @9% per annum as admissible Under Rule 89 of the Pension Rules. Any other writ, order or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of petition." 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while referring Annexure- 6 (letter dated 04.12.2016) submits that CMHO has forwarded VRS application of present petitioner to the Director (Public Health) on 04.12.2016 and till 31.03.2017, the application for VRS was neither approved nor rejected, and under Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996), it shall be presumed that the VRS of petitioner was accepted w.e.f. 31.03.2017. He further placed reliance upon order dated 18.09.2025 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.938/2022 (Dr. Sohan Karala Vs. the State of Rajasthan and Ors.) and submitted that the issue regarding voluntary retirement of the Government Doctors has been settled by a Co-ordinate Bench in case of Dr. Virendra Kumar Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.139/2019, therefore, this writ petition may be disposed in light of ratio laid down in case of Dr. Sohan Karala Vs. the State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra). 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, and that the VRS application is not accepted by the Department as same has not been received by them. She further submits that unless the application has been received and due application of mind is [2026:RJ-JP:6962] (3 of 10) [CW-15541/2017] exercised, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke presumption clause under Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996. She also placed reliance upon the case of State of UP Vs. Achal Singh : AIR 2018 SC 3940 and submits that due to shortage of doctors, an application for VRS cannot be allowed. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Medical Officer on 07.07.1997 and was selected by RPSC on 04.12.1998. The petitioner has filed an application on 02.12.2016 for seeking voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 31.03.2017. The application was forwarded on 04.12.2016 by CMHO, Jhalawar to the Director (Public Health) (respondent No.2). The defence of the respondents is that the letter dated 04.12.2016 has not been received and no decision was taken upon the application of VRS. 5. The petitioner has also forwarded an application of VRS which was refused by respondents on 24.03.2015 (Annexure-8). The letter dated 02.12.2016 for seeking VRS is filed as Annexure- 5 and we are reproducing the same as under:- "lsok esa] Jheku~ funs'kd egksn;] ¼tu LokLF;½ fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; lsok,sa] jktLFkku t;iqjA }kjk%& Jheku~ eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh egksn;] >kykokM+A fo"k; %& jkT; lsok ls R;kx gsrq ¼LosfPNd lsok fuo`Rrh ckcr~½A egksn;] mijksDr fo"k; esa lknj fuosnu gS fd esa MkW0 jfon;ky xqIrk] o0fo0 ¼xk;uh½] orZeku lkeqnkf;d LOkkLF; dsUnz euksgjFkkuk esa dk;Zjr gw¡] jkT; lsok esa esjh fu;qfDr fnukad 14-07-1997 gS] rc ls esa fujUrj dk;Zjr gw¡ Jheku~ ls fuosnu djuk pkgw¡xk dh orZeku esa esjh ikfjokfjd fLFkfr fo"ke gksus ls esa vc viuh lsok,sa nsus esa vleFkZ gw¡A vr% Jheku~ ls fuosnu gS fd eq>s fnukad 31-03-2017 ls jkT; lsok ls R;kx ¼LosfPNd lsok fuo`Rrh½ iznku djus dh d`ik djsa esa vkSj esjk ifjokj vkidk lnSo vkHkkjh jgsxkA Jheku~ dks vfxze dk;Zokgh gsrq lknj izsf"kr gSA [2026:RJ-JP:6962] (4 of 10) [CW-15541/2017] /kU;oknA fnukad %&02-12-2016 Hkonh; MkW0 jfon;ky xqIrk o0fo0 xk;uh gky inLFkkiu %&lkeq-Lok-dsUnz euksgjFkkuk ¼>kykokM+½ fuokl LFkku %&lh&138 eksgu uxj fg.MksuflVh ftyk djksyh eksckbZy uEcj %&9461455517" 6. Aforementioned letter dated 02.12.2016 is forwarded by CMHO, Jhalwar by letter dated 04.12.2016 (Annexure-6) and we are reproducing the same as under:- "jktLFkku ljdkj dk;kZy; eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh >kykokM+ Øekad@la[;k&T@2016@1692 fnukad %& 04-12-2016 Jheku funs'kd egksn;] ¼tu LokLF;½ fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; lsok;sa] jktLFkku t;iqj A fo"k; %& jfon;ky xqIrk] o0fo0 xk;uh] lkeqnkf;d LokLF; dsUnz euksgjFkkuk ds jkT; lsok ls R;kx ¼LosfPNd lsok fuo`Rrh½ ds lEcU/k esaA egksn; th] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr lknj fuosnu gS fd MkW0 jfon;ky xqIrk] ofj"B fo'ks"kK xk;uh lkeqnkf;d LokLF; dsUnz euksgjFkkuk }kjk jkT; lsok ls fnukad 31-03-2017 ls R;kx] LosfPNd lsok fuo`Rrh gsrq Lo;a dk izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k gS ftls ewy gh Jheku dks vfxze dk;Zokgh gsrq lknj izsf"kr gSA layXu %& mijksDrkuqlkj ewy izkFkuk i=A ¼MkW0 eksgEen lkftn½ eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh >kykokM+ Øekad@laLFkk&T@2016@1692 fnukad %&04-12-2016 izfrfyfi %& 1- Jheku funs'kd egksn;] ¼jktif=r½ fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; lsok,a jktLFkku t;iqjA 2- Jheku ftyk dysDVj egksn;] >kykokM+A 3- Jheku la;qDr funs'kd egksn;] fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; lsok,sa ifj{kS= dksVkA 4- [k.M eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh euksgjFkkuk eq[;ky; vdys'kA 5- o-fp-v- izHkkjh lkeqnkf;d LokLF; dsUnz euksgjFkkukA 6- lEcfU/kr fpfdRld dks lwpukFkZA╜ 7- dk;kZy; izfrA ¼MkW0 eksgEen lkftn½ [2026:RJ-JP:6962] (5 of 10) [CW-15541/2017] eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh >kykokM+" 7. The defence of the respondents is that they have not received any request letter (Annexure-5 & 6) for accepting VRS of the petitioner. The petitioner has sent a notice for demand of justice and same is placed as Annexure-9. The respondents have replied on 10.07.2014 (Annexure-14) and same is reproduced as under:- "jktLFkku ljdkj funs'kky;] fpfdRlk] LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k] lsok;sa] jktLFkku] t;iqjA Øekad % bZ&26@ofo@vkj&1469ikVZ@2017@1112 fnukad % 10-07-2017 Jh pUnz 'ks[kj 'kekZ] ,MoksdsV] psEcj ua 4] iqjkuh fcfYMax] jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] t;iqj ihB] t;iqjA fo"k;%&fnukad 27-04-2017 dks izLrqr fMek.M uksfVl ckcrA mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr vki }kjk MkW- jfon;ky xqIrk] ofj"B fo'ks"kK ¼xk;uh½ izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz] euksgjFkkuk ¼>kykokM+½ dks jkT; lsok ls fnukad 31-03-2017 ls LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk ds lEcU/k esa izsf"kr fMek.M uksfVl ds Øe esa ys[k gS fd MkW- xqIrk }kjk LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk gsrq izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= funs'kky; dks izkIr ugha gqvk gS rFkk fpfdRld ds LoSPNk ls vuqifLFkr jgus ij muds fo#) vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh izfdz;k/khu gSA vr% vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh izfdz;k/khu gksus ds dkj.k fpfdRld dk fnukad 31-03-2017 ls vkosfnr LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk Lohd`r ugha dh tk ldrh gSA vfrfjDr funs'kd ¼jktif=r½ fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; lsok;sa] jktLFkku] t;iqjA" 8. A circular dated 16.11.2016 issued by the respondent No.2 indicate that the CMHO and other controlling officers were informed to forward the letter of VRS to respondent No.2 so that timely decision can be taken. 9. The issue of VRS was considered by this Court in case of Dr. Vinay Malhotra Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16047/2025), wherein we have referred ratio laid down in case of State of UP Vs. Achal Singh (supra), laid [2026:RJ-JP:6962] (6 of 10) [CW-15541/2017] down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and relied upon observation that right to retire is not supreme than right to life particularly when services are required in view of public interest, and denial of voluntary retirement is permissible. A voluntary retirement is not automatic and it requires an order of acceptance by the State. 10. The legal position about voluntary retirement is considered by a three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dinesh Chand Sangma Vs. State of Assam (1977) 4 SCC 441 and further in case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. S.K. Singhal (1999) 4 SCC 293 by a two-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. In case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. S.K. Singhal (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred two judgments decided by a three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court; firstly in case of Dinesh Chand Sangma Vs. State of Assam (supra) and secondly in case of B.J. Shelat Vs. State of Gujarat (1978) 2 SCC 202 and followed in case of Union of India Vs. Sayed Muzaffar Mir 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 76. 12. Rule 50 of the Pension Rules of 1996 provides for voluntary retirement on completion of 15 years' as qualifying service and we are reproducing the Rule along with Government decision as under:- "Rule 50. Retirement on completion of 15 years’ qualifying Service:- (1) At any time after a Government servant has completed fifteen years qualifying service, he 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: [2026:RJ-JP:6962] (7 of 10) [CW-15541/2017] 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 automatically become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN’S DECISION Guidelines for acceptance of notice. - A notice of voluntary retirement given after completion of 2"fifteen years" qualifying service will require acceptance by the appointing authority. Such acceptance may be generally given in all cases except that the Appointing Authority shall withhold permission to retire a Government servant: (i) who is under suspension; (ii) in whose case the disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated for the imposition of a major penalty and the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, is of the view that such disciplinary proceedings might result in imposition of the penalty of removal or dismissal from service; (iii) in whose case prosecution is contemplated or may have been launched in a court of law. In such cases, if it is proposed to accept the notice of voluntary retirement approval of the Government should be obtained. Even where the notice of voluntary retirement given by the Government servant requires acceptance by the appointing authority, the Government servant giving notice may presume acceptance and the retirement shall be effective in terms of the notice unless the competent authority issues an order to the contrary before the expiry of the period of notice. (3) (a) A Government servant referred to in sub rule (1) may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons thereof; (b) On receipt of a request under clause (a), the appointing authority subject to the provisions of sub rule (2), may consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months. GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN’S DECISION In case a Government servant seeks voluntary retirement under rule 50 (1) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, with a view to contest any election to Parliament/State Assembly/Municipalities/Panchayati Raj Institutions, he may be retired by the competent authority under rule 50 of RCS (Pension) Rules immediately without prejudice to the right of Government going into the genuineness of the reasons and verification of the qualifying service rendered, and the period [2026:RJ-JP:6962] (8 of 10) [CW-15541/2017] of notice prescribed under rule 50 (1) of Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules shall in such cases be deemed to have been waived as a matter of course. [(4) A Government servant, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority. The application for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement shall be presented to the appointing authority, before issue of the order of acceptance of voluntary retirement; Provided that once the request of a Government servant for voluntary retirement has been accepted and communicated to him in writing by the appointing authority, it shall not be open to the Government servant to withdraw the request of voluntary retirement.] (5) The pension and retirement gratuity of the Government servant retiring under this rule shall be based on the emoluments as defined under Rule 45 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 which the Government Servant was rccning immediately before the date of retirement, and the increase not exceeding five years in his qualifying service under rule 51 shall not entitled him to any notional fixation of pay for purposes of calculating pension and gratuity. (6) This rule shall not apply to a Government servant who retires from Government service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement. EXPLANATION: For the purpose of this rule, the expression “appointing authority” shall mean the authority which is competent to make appointments to the service or post from which the Government servant seeks voluntary retirement. (7) If a Government servant seeks retirement under this rule while he is on leave not due, without returning to duty the retirement, shall take effect from the date of commencement of the leave not due and the leave salary paid in respect of such leave shall be recovered from him. [(8) A Government servant who gives notice of voluntary retirement under sub0-rule (1) of rule 50 shall satisfy himself by means of a reference to the appointing authority who is competent to retire him to the effect that he has, in fact, completed 15 years qualifying service for pension.]" [2026:RJ-JP:6962] (9 of 10) [CW-15541/2017] 13. Rule 50 of the Pension Rules, 1996 clearly provides that if no decision has been taken within a period of notice of three months as prescribed under the Rule 50(1), then the voluntary retirement will be automatic. Thus, the ratio laid down in case of State of UP Vs. Achal Singh (supra) is not applicable in the instant case. 14. The guidelines prescribed for acceptance of notice for VRS indicate that an application for voluntarily retirement can be refused thus if an order is passed for refusal to grant voluntarily retirement then same is well within power under Rule 50 of the Pension Rules, 1996. A person cannot claim voluntarily retirement as a fundamental right but here in this case after forwarding of application for voluntarily retirement dated 02.12.2016 by CMHO, Jhalawar on 04.12.2016, no decision was taken till 31.03.2017, which means the petitioner was not informed about rejection of his application dated 02.12.2016 (Annexure-5). 15. The letter dated 04.12.2016 forwarded by CMHO, Jhalwar indicate that same has been received by CMHO and forwarded to respondent No.2 and now there is no excuse with the respondents to say that they have not received the letter dated 02.12.2016 or 04.12.2016. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment in case of Dr. Sohan Karala Vs. the State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) passed by a Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, wherein after referring and relying upon judgment in case of Dr. Virendra Kumar Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), it was held that the voluntary retirement must be treated as having come into existence. [2026:RJ-JP:6962] (10 of 10) [CW-15541/2017] 17. Here in this case, the VRS application itself indicate that the petitioner has sought VRS with effect from 31.07.2017 and same is forwarded by CMHO on 04.12.2016 which clearly indicate that 90 days has been provided for taking decision but no decision has been taken. The letter dated 10.07.2017 (Annexure-14) responded by the respondent No. 3 pursuant to notice for demand of justice is itself liable to be quashed and set aside as the respondent cannot initiate any disciplinary proceeding if the petitioner is not attending the duties after 01.04.2017, thus, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 18. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is hereby allowed and the letter dated 10.07.2017 (Annexure-14) for initiation of disciplinary proceeding is hereby quashed and set aside. It is hereby directed that the voluntary retirement of the petitioner be accepted immediately w.e.f. 31.03.2017, and a formal order be issued accordingly. If the petitioner has attained qualifying service, and he is entitled for the retiral benefit which are available to him after being superannuated on 31.03.2017 on the basis of length of his service, same be computed and granted immediately. 19. The writ petition and misc. application, if any, stands disposed. 20. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/40