Voluntary retirement under FR 56(k) cannot be withheld solely for administrative staff shortages.

The applicant, Shri M.V. Rohit, joined the Central Silk Board as a Lower Division Clerk on 21 February 1994 and was serving as Assistant Superintendent (Administration) at the Silkworm Seed Production Centre, Chintamani.

After approximately 31 years of service and having attained the age of 54 years, he submitted an application dated 1 November 2025 seeking voluntary retirement under FR 56(k)(1), citing the need to care for his aged and ill mother and other personal circumstances.

The respondents rejected his request by order dated 21 January 2026, principally on the ground of shortage of administrative staff and the applicant’s additional charge of nearby units.

The applicant challenged the rejection and sought reconsideration of his request for voluntary retirement with effect from 28 February 2026, after completion of the three-month notice period.

1. Whether the respondents could withhold or reject the applicant’s request for voluntary retirement under FR 56(k)(1) on the ground of shortage of staff and organisational requirements, when none of the circumstances specified in FR 56(k)(1)(c) existed?

2. Whether the impugned order dated 21 January 2026 was legally sustainable in view of the applicant’s age, length of service, and compliance with the conditions for voluntary retirement under FR 56(k)(1) and Rule 48(1)(a) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972?

3. Whether the Tribunal was bound to follow its earlier coordinate-Bench decisions concerning voluntary retirement under FR 56(k)(1)?

The Tribunal applied FR 56(k)(1), under which an eligible Government servant may retire by giving at least three months’ written notice after attaining the prescribed age; permission may be withheld only where the Government servant is under suspension, a charge-sheet has been issued and disciplinary proceedings are pending, or judicial proceedings involving charges that may amount to grave misconduct are pending.

It also considered Rule 48(1)(a) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, concerning voluntary retirement after completion of 30 years of qualifying service, and the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 27 February 2014, which aligned the permissible grounds for withholding voluntary retirement under the relevant provisions.

The Tribunal relied on its earlier decisions in B. Lakshmi Kanthamma v. Central Silk Board, OA No.637/2024, and M. Manohara v. Joint Secretary (Silk), OA No.514/2025, holding that shortage of staff or a policy of considering only medical-ground applications could not constitute an additional ground for rejecting a request under FR 56(k)(1).

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Achal Singh, Civil Appeal No.8421/2018, was distinguished because it concerned differently worded Uttar Pradesh rules containing a public-interest basis for refusal.

The Tribunal further applied the rule of judicial discipline from S.I. Rooplal v. Lt. Governor and Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. G.H. Society, requiring a coordinate Bench to follow an earlier coordinate-Bench decision or refer the matter to a larger Bench if it disagrees.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had completed approximately 31 years of service, was over 50 years of age, and otherwise satisfied the requirements for seeking voluntary retirement under FR 56(k)(1) and Rule 48(1)(a).

It was undisputed that he was neither under suspension nor facing pending disciplinary or judicial proceedings of the kind specified in FR 56(k)(1)(c).

The respondents’ reliance on shortage of administrative personnel, additional duties assigned to the applicant, and organisational interest therefore did not fall within any of the statutory grounds permitting withholding of permission.

The Tribunal held that its earlier coordinate-Bench decisions had already rejected materially similar reasons advanced by the Central Silk Board and that the present case disclosed no basis for taking a different view.

The decision in Achal Singh did not assist the respondents because the Uttar Pradesh rule examined there expressly incorporated public interest as a relevant consideration, whereas FR 56(k)(1) contained no comparable provision.

It therefore quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 21 January 2026 and directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant’s application dated 1 November 2025 in accordance with the Tribunal’s observations and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal did not itself direct immediate retirement with effect from 28 February 2026.

No order as to costs was made.