The Rajasthan High Court has intervened to help a government employee who was denied his retiral benefits after the state made a mistake in accepting his premature voluntary retirement (VRS) application. The employee had not completed the required 15 years of service, which is a condition for qualifying for voluntary retirement under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996.
The case was brought before the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, who referred to a previous ruling in the Sudheer Kumar Khana v State of Rajasthan case. In that ruling, the court had clarified that if the state accepts a VRS application based on the assumption that the employee had met the 15-year service requirement, the state cannot later deny retiral benefits on the grounds that the service requirement was not met.
In this case, the employee had applied for voluntary retirement due to a mental health condition. The state accepted the application, but when the employee sought his retirement benefits, they were denied. The state argued that the employee had not completed the necessary 15 years of service for voluntary retirement eligibility.
Justice Dhand, while hearing the petition, pointed out that according to Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, an employee can only apply for voluntary retirement after completing 15 years of service, which the employee had not done. However, the judge found the situation concerning, as both the employee and the state had made errors. The state could have rejected the application initially, but instead, it was accepted.
The court stressed that once the state accepted the employee’s application for voluntary retirement, it could not later deny the retiral benefits. The state was bound to honor the decision and provide the benefits based on the total length of the employee’s service.
Justice Dhand also referred to the Sudheer Kumar case, where it was stated that if the state mistakenly grants premature retirement based on incorrect information about an employee’s service record, it must not only cancel the premature retirement decision but also offer reemployment to the employee. The state cannot simply deny the benefits and leave the employee without a resolution.
In this case, the court ruled that the state’s actions were unjustified and ordered that the employee be granted all of his retiral benefits, along with an interest rate of 9%. The petition was allowed, ensuring that the employee would receive his rightful dues.
