Voluntary retirement is valid only upon strict compliance with FR 56(c) and prescribed statutory conditions.

The petitioner, wife of Late Hema Konwar, challenged the order dated 30.06.2018 accepting her husband’s application for voluntary retirement and the communication dated 15.05.2023 rejecting or not entertaining her request under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Hema Konwar had served as a Constable (AB) in the 1st Assam Police Battalion from 14.07.2009 and had completed approximately 8 years and 10 months of service when he sought voluntary retirement on grounds of illness, physical discomfort and seizure disorder.

His application was accepted on 30.06.2018, and he subsequently died on 22.09.2019.

The petitioner claimed that she became aware of the voluntary-retirement order only when she approached the authorities for pensionary and other service benefits and thereafter sought the relevant records under the RTI Act.

The State submitted that the application had been made voluntarily by the deceased employee but fairly accepted that the original service records should be examined to determine compliance with the applicable rules.

1. Whether the acceptance of Late Hema Konwar’s application for voluntary retirement on 30.06.2018 was valid under FR 56(c), including compliance with the requirements relating to age, qualifying service, notice, competent authority and the relevant service records.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to retirement pension, family pension, compassionate family pension or other consequential benefits depending upon the validity of the voluntary-retirement order.

3. Whether the petitioner could be furnished the relevant service and voluntary-retirement documents under the RTI Act, subject to the statutory exemptions.

The Court applied FR 56(c), which permits a Government servant to retire by giving not less than three months’ written notice to the appropriate authority after attaining 50 years of age or completing 25 years of service, whichever is earlier; the “appropriate authority” is the authority competent to make a substantive appointment to the relevant post or service.

Compliance with these statutory conditions cannot be waived merely because the employee himself submitted the voluntary-retirement application.

Pensionary, family-pensionary and compassionate family-pension claims must be considered under the applicable service rules and Government schemes, including the scheme referred to in the Office Memorandum dated 31.10.2017.

Disclosure of relevant records under the RTI Act is subject to the exemptions prescribed by that statute.

The Court noted that the deceased had rendered only about 8 years and 10 months of service, making it necessary to verify whether he had attained the prescribed age and whether the other requirements of FR 56(c) had been fulfilled.

Since the record before the Court did not conclusively establish the date and contents of the application, the notice period, the employee’s age and qualifying service, the competent authority, or the basis on which the order dated 30.06.2018 was issued, the Court declined to finally uphold or invalidate the voluntary retirement.

It directed the competent authority to examine the complete original service records and to determine the validity of the retirement under FR 56(c) and the applicable rules.

The Court further held that the petitioner’s entitlement to pensionary or family-pensionary benefits would depend upon that determination, and that the relevant records should also be considered for disclosure under the RTI Act, subject to lawful exemptions.

The competent authority was directed to examine the complete service and pension records, determine whether the order dated 30.06.2018 complied with FR 56(c), and thereafter decide the petitioner’s entitlement to retirement pension, family pension, compassionate family pension and other admissible benefits in accordance with law.

The authority must pass a reasoned and speaking order after giving the petitioner an opportunity to submit relevant documents or a representation, and complete the exercise within four months from receipt of the certified order.

It was also directed to reconsider, subject to the RTI Act’s exemptions, whether the relevant service and retirement documents could be furnished to the petitioner.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.