Acceptance of voluntary retirement before expiry of the mandatory three-month notice period is invalid.

Respondent No. 1, a Senior Accounts Assistant, submitted an application for voluntary retirement (VRS) on 20 December 2021, addressed to the Treasury Officer.

She alleged that she had signed it under coercion and submitted a withdrawal application the following day.

The authorities denied receiving the withdrawal application and maintained that the Deputy Commissioner approved the VRS on 9 February 2022, which the Treasury Officer communicated on 28 February 2022.

Respondent No. 1 challenged the retirement, alleging that the process was premature, the application was addressed to the wrong authority, and the approval records had been manipulated.

The Single Judge allowed her writ petition; the State appealed.

1. Whether respondent No. 1 applied on 21 December 2021 to withdraw her VRS application dated 20 December 2021.

2. Whether the authorities were required to wait three months before accepting the VRS application.

3. Whether the VRS application, addressed to the Treasury Officer rather than the appropriate authority, was valid and could be acted upon.

4. Whether the Single Judge’s judgment was liable to appellate interference.

Fundamental Rule 56(c) permits a Government servant who meets its eligibility conditions to retire by giving not less than three months’ written notice to the appropriate authority; the Court held that the notice period had to be observed and the employee could withdraw the application within that period.

In Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam, the Supreme Court treated FR 56(c) as binding statutory service conditions.

State of Haryana v. S.K. Singhal establishes that voluntary retirement requires acceptance and that acceptance must be communicated.

Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab holds that an order affecting a person must be communicated to bind that person.

The Court also relied on Suresh Prasad Singh v. Union of India regarding compliance with the FR 56(c) notice period and withdrawal before retirement takes effect.

The Court also relied on Mangal Prasad Tamoli v. Narvadeshwar Mishra and Ritesh Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh for the principle that proceedings founded on an unlawful initial act are liable to be set aside.

The Court accepted that respondent No. 1 had submitted a withdrawal application, noting her specific account that it was received by an identified office assistant and the absence of a denial by the then Treasury Officer.

It held that acceptance and communication of the VRS before expiry of three months deprived her of the opportunity to withdraw and contravened FR 56(c).

The application was addressed to the Treasury Officer, whom the State did not establish as the appropriate authority; forwarding it to the Deputy Commissioner did not cure that defect.

The authorities also failed to establish that the Deputy Commissioner’s purported approval was communicated to respondent No. 1; the Court found that the 28 February communication did not refer to the approval as an enclosure.

These findings, together with the issues concerning the approval and register entries, supported the Single Judge’s decision.

It found no basis to interfere with the Single Judge’s judgment.

The writ appeal was dismissed, the judgment allowing the writ petition was affirmed, and the authorities were directed to treat respondent No. 1 as having attended duty after 3 June 2022, including for salary purposes.