Rajasthan High Court Orders State To Release Retiral Benefits Of Employee Who Was Granted Premature Voluntary Retirement

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand relied upon the coordinate bench decision of Sudheer Kumar Khana v State of Rajasthan (“Sudheer Kumar Case”) in which it was held that,

“Once an application was filed by the petitioner under Rule 50 seeking premature retirement on the assumption that he had completed 15 years of qualifying service and the respondents once after examining the requirements of Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 i.e. 15 years' qualifying service as required under the provisions of the Pension Rules came to a conclusion that he fulfills the requirement of qualifying service and grants premature retirement, the State cannot turn around and claim that as the petitioner had not completed the qualifying service, he would not be entitled to grant of retiral benefits.”

The Court was hearing a petition by an employee who had applied for voluntary retirement on account of mental health condition which was accepted by the State. However, when the employee sought retiral benefits, the same were rejected on the ground that the employee had not completed 15 years of service, required for qualifying for voluntary retirement. Hence, the petition was filed by the employee (“petitioner”).

After hearing the contentions the Court highlighted that as per Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (“1996 Act”), a person could apply for voluntary retirement after completion of 15 years which was not completed by the petitioner in the present case.

Opining the situation to be both shocking and surprising, the Court observed that the mistake was committed not only on part of the petitioner but also the State which could have rejected the application but instead accepted the same.

“Now, at this stage, the respondents cannot deny the retiral benefits of the petitioner…The respondents cannot put the petitioner in a disadvantageous situation…once the respondents have acted upon the premature request of the petitioner while accepting his prayer for VRS, they are bound to grant him the retirement benefits looking to the total length of his service.”

The Court referred to the Sudheer Kumar case in which it was held that,

“In a given case, the authorities may commit a mistake in granting premature retirement based on wrong assumption of the government employee having completed 15 years' of qualifying service, in that case the State/appointing authority is not only required to cancel the order of premature retirement after affording an opportunity of hearing to the government servant, but offer reemployment to the said employee. It cannot simply deny the benefits of premature retirement so that the employee is left in a no man's land…”

In this background, it was held that act of the State was not sustainable, and accordingly, the petition was allowed. The State was directed to grant all retiral benefits to the petitioner along with an interest at the rate of 9%.

Title: Ram Niwas v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 70

Counsel for Petitioner(s): Mr. Mahendra Singh Yadav

Counsel for Respondent(s): Mr. Manvijay Singh Rathore for Mr. Kesar Singh Shekhawat, Addl. GC