2026:UHC:991 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1256/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Dileep Chandra Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner was serving as Head of Department in Government Polytechnic, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. By means of this writ petition, she has sought the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 passed by respondent (contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to calculate her services according to rule 6(c) of the Uttarakhand Retirement Benfits Act, 2018 (Uttarakhand Act No. 17 of 2018) (as amended by UK Act No. 34 of 2018) and paid proportional pension, gratuity and other benefits to the petitioner with interest. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner applied for voluntary retirement, which was granted; however, pension and other benefits are not being released to her. 5. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that petitioner did not apply for voluntary retirement, and, in fact, she resigned from service, as is apparent from Annexure 4 to the writ petition. 6. The letter submitted by petitioner before Secretary, Technical Education on 2026:UHC:991 20.09.2022 is on record as annexure no. 4 to the writ petition in that petitioner had mentioned that she is not interested in serving in the Department anymore and due to personal reasons, she may be permitted to resign from 20.12.2022. 7. It is not her case that she withdrew her resignation before its acceptance by the Competent Authority. The resignation was accepted by the Competent Authority w.e.f. 20.01.2023, as is apparent from the document, which is enclosed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. 8. Petitioner has challenged the order issued by the Secretary, Technical Education dated 20.01.2025, whereby petitioner’s claim for pension was denied. Petitioner has challenged rejection of her claim for pension. 9. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Rule 56(c) of U.P. Fundamental Rules, Volume II (Parts 2 to 4) deals with compulsory retirement as well as voluntary retirement, which is extracted below:- “56(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) or clause (b), the appointing authority may, at any time by notice to any Government servant (whether permanent or temporary), without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attains the age of fifty years or such Government servant may by notice to the appointing authority voluntarily retire at any time after attaining the age of forty-five years or after he has completed qualifying service of twenty years.” 10. From perusal of the said Rule, it is revealed that a Government Servant, who has completed forty-five years of age or has completed qualifying service 2026:UHC:991 of twenty years alone can apply for voluntary retirement. 11. In the affidavit dated 23.07.2025, filed in support of the writ petition, the age of the petitioner is mentioned as 46 years. Petitioner applied for relinquishing her employment on 20.09.2022; as such, her age, at the time of her making application, was less than 45 years. She was appointed as Lecturer in Technical Education Department, vide order dated 01.11.2004; as such, she had not completed the required length of service i.e., twenty years, on 20.09.2022 when she made the application. Since voluntary retirement is governed by statutory rules and the right to apply for voluntary retirement flows from second- half of Rule 56(c) of U.P. Fundamental Rules, Volume II (Parts 2 to 4), therefore, a Government servant, who meets the requirement of Rule 56(c) alone can apply for voluntary retirement. In her application, petitioner did not use the expression “voluntary retirement” and she mentioned that she is resigning from service. 12. Civil Service Regulations in Rule 418(a) provide that upon resignation from public service or dismissal or removal therefrom, entails forfeiture of past service. Rule 418(a) of the Civil Service Regulations is extracted below:- “418(a) Regulation of the public service, or dismissal or removal from it for misconduct, insolvency in-efficiency not due to age, or failure to pass a prescribed examination entails forfeiture of past service.” 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Uttarakhand Retirement Benefits Act, 2018 for contending that 2026:UHC:991 Rule 56(c) of U.P. Fundamental Rules, Volume II (Parts 2 to 4) would not be applicable. The said contention is devoid of merit. Section 1(2) of the said Act provides that the Act shall apply in case of completion of superannuation age, voluntary retirement and compulsory retirement in respect of persons who were appointed under the State before 1st October, 2005. The eligibility and other conditions for voluntary retirement are not mentioned in The Uttarakhand Retirement Benefits Act, 2018; therefore, these aspects will be governed by U.P. Fundamental Rules. There is nothing in the Act to indicate that the provisions of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, dealing with voluntary retirement, have been superseded. 14. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the right to apply for voluntary retirement and eligibility therefor would continue to flow from latter half of Rule 56(c) of U.P. Fundamental Rules, Volume II (Part 2 to 4), notwithstanding enforcement of U.P. Retirement Benefits Act, 2018. 15. Even otherwise, also, from perusal of Annexure 4 to the writ petition, it is revealed that petitioner had tendered resignation and she had not requested for voluntary retirement. The Competent Authority also treated Annexure 4 as resignation and not a request for voluntary retirement. Petitioner has not raised grievance against the decision taken by the Secretary, Technical Education, whereby her request was treated as resignation. Without meeting the conditions of eligibility, as mentioned in the relevant Statutory Rules, petitioner cannot claim pension. Pension is a 2026:UHC:991 statutory right and the statute provides for forfeiture of pension in case of resignation from service. 16. Thus, the relief as claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted. However, the admissible dues, if any, including G.P.F., shall be released to the petitioner, as per applicable rules. 17. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 16.02.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512 ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE 58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.02.17 03:44:19 -08'00'