### Deemed Resignation Under Rule 7(2)(c) Prevails Over Non-Compliant, Conditional Requests for Voluntary Retirement

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Petitioners’ communications for voluntary retirement constituted a valid notice under Rule 16(2) of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958, leading to a "deemed acceptance" upon the expiry of the notice period.

The court held

The Court dismissed the Writ Petitions, holding that the Petitioners failed to submit valid VRS notices, and thus no "deemed retirement" occurred.

It also directed

The Court affirmed the Respondents' decision to treat the Petitioners as having "deemed resigned" from the IAS effective from the dates their approved foreign assignments ended (01.06.2006 and 24.08.2005 respectively).

The Court concluded that the decision-making process was neither arbitrary nor perverse and adhered to principles of natural justice.

01Facts

The Petitioners, members of the 1980 and 1985 batches of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), were granted cadre clearance for foreign assignments with international organizations (Geneva and Bangkok/Paris).

p. 3, 8

After their approved tenures expired, they failed to rejoin their parent cadres despite repeated directions from the Central and State Governments.

p. 3, 13

Instead of joining, the Petitioners submitted communications in 2010 seeking further time to report or, in the alternative, requesting voluntary retirement (VRS) "with immediate effect".

p. 5, 8

Petitioner Priyadarshi was absent from 01.06.2006, and Petitioner Bagai from 23.08.2005.

p. 2

The Respondents invoked Rule 7(2)(c) of the AIS (Leave) Rules, 1955, declaring them to have "deemed resigned" due to prolonged unauthorized absence.

p. 7, 9

The Petitioners challenged these orders before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed their applications on 15.10.2025.

p. 1, 9

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Petitioners’ communications for voluntary retirement constituted a valid notice under Rule 16(2) of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958, leading to a "deemed acceptance" upon the expiry of the notice period.

p. 2 / para. 3

ii.2. Whether the Respondents were legally justified in invoking the "deemed resignation" clause under Rule 7(2)(c) of the AIS (Leave) Rules, 1955, on account of continuous unauthorized absence.

p. 17 / para. 59

03Law Applied

Rule 16(2) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, which requires a member to give at least three months' previous notice in writing to the Government to retire.

p. 6

Rule 7(2)(c) of the All India Service (Leave) Rules, 1955, which stipulates that a member is "deemed to have resigned" if they continue on foreign service beyond the approved period or remain absent without authorization for over five years.

p. 5, 17

The court referenced precedents like Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam and State of Haryana v. S.K. Singhal, which establish that a valid, unconditional notice takes effect upon the expiry of the notice period unless specifically withheld.

p. 11, 15

04Reasoning

The Court found that for the doctrine of "automatic" or "deemed" acceptance of VRS to apply, the initial notice must be clear, unequivocal, and compliant with statutory requirements.

p. 14

In this case, the Petitioners' requests were "conditional and contingent," seeking more time to wind up affairs and requesting VRS only in the alternative.

p. 14 / para. 54

Since the requests sought VRS "with immediate effect" rather than providing the mandatory three-month notice, they did not satisfy Rule 16(2).

p. 14

the Petitioners' conduct—submitting joining reports only to immediately apply for further leave and applying for senior PSU positions while remaining abroad—demonstrated a lack of bona fide intent to serve.

p. 16

The Court held that since no valid VRS notice existed, the Respondents were not obliged to act on it.

p. 17 / para. 60

Consequently, the prolonged absence squarely attracted the "deemed resignation" provision under Rule 7(2)(c), which was invoked after providing multiple opportunities and show-cause notices to the Petitioners.

pp. 16-17