The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9003 of 2024 An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Dr. Manoranjan Mallik …. Petitioner Mr. Budhadev Routray, Sr. Advocate along with Mr.A.K.Biswal, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opp. Parties Mr. S.Das, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA _____________________________________________________ Date of hearing : 06.05.2024 | Date of Judgment: 06.05.2024 ______________________________________________________ A.K. Mohapatra, J. : 1. The above noted writ application has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 16.03.2024 communicated to the Petitioner vide letter dated 20.03.2024 under Annexure-8 to the writ application issued by the Opposite Party No.1. By virtue of the impugned rejection order under Annexure-8, the Opposite Party No.1 has rejected the application of the Petitioner seeking voluntary retirement from government service. The impugned rejection order Page 1 of 27 under Annexure-8 has been challenged in the present writ application mainly on the ground that such rejection by the Opposite Party No.1 is contrary to the provisions contained Rule-42 of the Odisha Pension Rules, 1992 specifically Rule-42. Moreover, the impugned rejection order has already been challenged on the ground that the same not only arbitrary and illegal, but also discriminatory inasmuch as the State Government in the recent past has accepted many such application seeking voluntary retirements whereas, in the case of the Petitioner, the prayer for voluntary retirement has been rejected on untenable grounds. 2. The factual background leading to filing of the present writ application, in brief, is that the Petitioner was initially appointed and joined as Assistant Surgeon on 10.07.1997 and accordingly, was posted at Padiabeda PHC (N) in the district of Mayurbhanj. While continuing in service, the Petitioner completed his post graduation, upon completion of which, the Petitioner was posted as a Lecturer at MKCG Medical College, Berhampur on 09.01.2001 and was performing his duties in such medical college up to 22.06.2005. During his service career, the Petitioner was posted at and discharged his duties as Assistant Professor and Associate Professor in S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack and V.S.S. Medical College and Page 2 of 27 Hospital, Burla. Finally, the Petitioner was promoted and posted as Professor on 15.03.2022 at Sahid Laxman Nayak Medical College & Hospital (SLNMCH), Koraput and is continuing as such till date. The Petitioner has rendered 26 years of valuable service to the patients in the State of Odisha while serving at different medical colleges in the State. On the basis of the official record and the service book, the Petitioner is due to retire from service on 30.04.2034. 3. While the Petitioner was continuing as Professor of Orthopedics at SLNMCH, Koraput, he submitted an application on 14.11.2023 to the Opposite Party No.1. In the said application, the Petitioner has sought for voluntary retirement from service, in terms of the Rule-42 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. In his application seeking voluntary retirement, the Petitioner had taken a ground that he wants to work for the society, particularly for the tribal section of the society and to improve their education and for the overall upliftment of their living standards. He has also expressed his desire to participate in the ensuing Assembly elections and to contest such election for being elected to the Odisha Legislative Assembly from Udala Constituency of Mayurbhanj District. The Dean and Principal of SLNMCH, Koraput forwarded the application of the Petitioner to Page 3 of 27 the Director of Medical Education and Training (D.M.E.T.), Odisha and, to the State Govt. i.e. Opposite Party No.1. 4. On receipt of the application submitted by the Petitioner the State Government obtained the requisite vigilance clearance. Furthermore, along with the application of the Petitioner, the Dean and Principal of the Medical College had also forwarded the service particulars of the Petitioner on 29.11.2023. It appears, by the time the application was submitted by the Petitioner, the petitioner had completed 26 years 4 months 20 days of service. On 08.02.2024, the Petitioner received a communication from the Additional Secretary to Govt. in Health and Family Welfare Dept. stating therein that the application of the Petitioner seeking voluntary retirement has been rejected by the Govt. in the larger public interest and owing to the dearth of faculties in the Govt. Medical College and Hospital and PG Institutes of the State. 5.
Facts
After rejection of the first application of the Petitioner seeking voluntary retirement from service, the Petitioner submitted another application on 15.02.2024 with a request to allow him to take voluntary retirement from service. The second application was also forwarded to the Opposite Party No.1 by the Opposite party No.3 on 15.02.2024. In the second application, the Petitioner has Page 4 of 27 stated that his two sons are studying in Cuttack, while his mother is suffering from heart problem and that his wife is inflicted with chronic arthritis, and, there is nobody, besides him, to look after his ailing family members and his children. As such, a request was made to the Govt. to accept the VRS (Voluntary Retirement from Service) application submitted by the Petitioner. While the second application was pending before the Govt., the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3975 of 2024 thereby challenging the order dated 08.02.2024, wherein the first application for voluntary retirement was rejected. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ application, a second application for voluntary retirement was made by the Petitioner on 15.02.2024. 6. This Court after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, vide order dated 26.02.2024, disposed of the above noted writ application by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider and dispose of the application of the Petitioner dated 15.02.2024 within a period of 10 days from the date of the order. The order dated 26.02.2024 was subsequently modified whereby the Opposite Party No.1 was directed to consider and dispose of the second application for voluntary retirement filed on 15.02.2024, vide order dated 06.03.2024. Page 5 of 27 7. After disposal of the above noted writ application, the Petitioner again approached the Opposite Party No.1 for taking an early decision on his application as the dates for filing nomination paper for the ensuing assembly elections was getting closer. While the matter stood thus, the Opposite Party No.1, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application, considered the application of the Petitioner once again rejected the application of the Petitioner vide order dated 16.03.2024, which was communicated to the Petitioner on 20.03.2024. It appears from the record that the subsequent application has been rejected on identical grounds that were taken while rejecting the first application of the Petitioner. The rejection order dated 16.03.2024, which was communicated to the Petitioner vide letter dated 20.03.2024, reached the Petitioner on 08.04.2024. Since there was a delay in communicating the order on the part of the Govt., the Petitioner filed another VRS application on 27.03.2024. However, since the order dated 16.03.2024 reached the Petitioner on 08.04.2024, the Petitioner immediately withdrew the application dated 27.03.2024. Thereafter, the present writ application has been filed challenging the rejection order dated 16.03.2024. Page 6 of 27 8.
Legal Reasoning
Rule. So far the present petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute that the Petitioner complies with the minimum requirement for making such application and he has followed the procedure of giving a notice of not less than three months. Therefore, the Opposite Parties are not within their authority in rejecting the application of the Petitioner seeking VRS on the ground of dearth of faculties in the medical colleges in the State of Odisha and the ground of public interest involved in the present case. Moreover, such a ground is not available to the Opposite Parties in view of the Page 25 of 27 specific provisions contained in Rule-42. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the Opposite Parties have committed an illegality in rejecting the application of the Petitioner seeking VRS from service. On such grounds, the writ application filed by the Petitioner is bound to succeed. Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-8 dated 16.03.2024 is hereby quashed. Further, the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to accept the VRS of the Petitioner with effect from the date of expiry of the three months’ notice period calculated from the date of his initial application, which was admittedly submitted on 14.11.2023. In other words, the relationship of the employer and employee of the Petitioner with the Govt. of Odisha shall come to an end on completion of three months’ notice period with effect from the date 14.02.2024. Moreover, it is made clear that if the Petitioner is continuing in service and discharging his duties, he shall be paid his salary and other emoluments up to the period for which he has rendered his services. However, for all practical purposes, the relationship of the employer and employee shall come to an end w.e.f. 14.02.2024. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties are directed to process the claim of the petitioner for grant of retiral dues as well as pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to the petitioner in the Page 26 of 27 light of the aforesaid observation within a period of three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this judgment. 27. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 06th May, 2024/ Anil. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-May-2024 19:49:59 Page 27 of 27
Arguments
Heard Shri Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as documents annexed thereto and the PWC dated 04.05.2024 submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate before this Court for consideration. 9. Mr. Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner at the outset submitted that the grounds taken in the rejection are untenable in the eye of law. He further contended that the application seeking voluntary retirement from service is governed by the provisions contained in Rule-42 of the Odisha Pension Rules, 1992. Further. referring to Rule-42(1), learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Government servant acquires eligibility to make an application before the Govt. seeking voluntary retirement from service after completion of twenty years of qualifying service. So far the present Petitioner is concerned, it was submitted before this Court that he has rendered more than 26 years of unblemished service to the public as a doctor in various medical colleges of the State. Therefore, the Petitioner is eligible to make an application seeking voluntary retirement from service. By referring Page 7 of 27 to Rule-42, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the only eligibility criteria for being eligible to submit an application seeking voluntary retirement is the qualifying service of 20 years by the government servant seeking VRS. It was also contended that government servant who is seeking voluntary retirement from service is required to give a notice to the Government/ Appointing Authority of not less than three months in writing. Additionally, it was submitted that Rule 42(2) provides that the notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule 1 shall require acceptance by the Appointing Authority. 10. Most importantly, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner referring to the Note appended to Rule-42(2), contended that the acceptance under Rule-42(2) may be generally given in all cases by the Appointing Authority. Therefore, it was submitted that no specific ground is provided on which an application can be made by the government servant seeking voluntary retirement from service. The only requirement as per Rule-42 is that the Government servant must have completed 20 years of qualifying service and that he must have given a notice of not less than three months in writing to his/ her Appointing Authority. Therefore, it was argued that an application seeking voluntary retirement can be made on any Page 8 of 27 grounds subject to the aforesaid twin condition as prescribed under Rule-42 of the OCS (Pension) Rules. Besides the aforesaid twin grounds, there is no other requirement prescribed under Rule-42 which governs the subject of voluntary retirement from service by a Government servant. 11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has laid much emphasis on the Note appended to Rule-42(2). Therefore, this Court feels that the aforesaid note requires a thorough scrutiny by this Court and the same is quoted hereinbelow:- 42. Voluntary Retirement on completion of 20 years Qualifying Service- (1) At any time after a Government servant has completed twenty years qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub- rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority. Note-Such acceptance may be generally given in all cases except those (a) in which disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated against the Government servant concerned for the imposition of a major penalty and the disciplinary authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, is of the view that the imposition of the penalty of removal or dismissal from service would be warranted in the case or (b) in which prosecution is contemplated or have launched in a Court of Law against the Government servant concerned. If it is proposed to accept the notice of voluntary retirement in such cases, approval of the Government should be obtained: Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry Page 9 of 27 of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date that of expiry of the said period. 12. Upon a cursory look at the Note appended to Rule-42(2), this Court observed that it has been specifically provided that the acceptance under Rule-42(2) may be generally given in all cases except in the following cases:- in which Disciplinary Proceeding are pending or a) contemplated against the government servant concerned for the imposition of a major penalty and the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, is of the view that the imposition of the penalty of removal or dismissal from service would be warranted in the case, or b) in a Court of Law against the Government servant concerned. in the prosecution is contemplated or have been launched 13. A conjoint reading of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of Rule- 42, as well as the Note appended to sub-rule 2 clearly provides that a government servant, on completion of 20 years of qualifying service, becomes eligible to apply for voluntary retirement from service. However, such government servant has to give a notice of not less than three months in writing to the Appointing Authority. Furthermore, the notice given by the Government servant requires acceptance by the Appointing Authority under sub Rule-2. The Note appended to sub-Rule 2 although may not overwrite the substantive provision contained in sub-rule 2, however, the same is indicative in Page 10 of 27 nature. Such Note clearly provides that the acceptance contemplated under sub-Rule 2 may be given generally in all cases i.e. the acceptance of VRS is a Rule and the rejection is an exception. Additionally, certain exceptions under which the VRS application may be refused have also been indicated in the Note appended to sub-Rule 2. Ergo, while considering the case of the Petitioner, this Court is required to examine the case of the Petitioner by applying the aforesaid analysis of law and the provisions contained in Rule- 42 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. 14. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, by referring to the aforesaid Rule-42 of the Odisha Pension Rules, again contended before this Court that the petitioner has completed 20 years of qualifying service which is required to be eligible to make an application as provided under Rule-42(1) of the OCS (Pension) Rules. He further contended that as required under Rule-42(1), the Petitioner had also given a notice of three months expressing his desire to take voluntary retirement from government service. He further demonstrated that such request of the Petitioner under Rule- 42 has been duly forwarded to the Appointing Authority for its approval/ acceptance. Page 11 of 27 15. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the problem in the present matter the Appointing Authority’s end when, the application of the Petitioner was rejected by citing the reason as dearth of doctors in the Govt. Medical colleges in the State of Odisha. He further contended that on both the occasions the Appointing Authority took the very same ground, i.e., dearth of govt. doctors in the State of Odisha and public interest involved, in not accepting the VRS application of the Petitioner. It was emphatically argued by Mr. Routray, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the grounds taken in the rejection order are not legal. In the said context, he also referred Rule-42 and submitted that the Note appended Rule-42(2) specifies the grounds upon which an application for VRS could be rejected by the Appointing Authority. In the aforesaid context, it was submitted before this Court that none of the exceptions as provided in the Note appended to Rule-42(2) are applicable to the facts of the Petitioner’s case. 16. In course of his argument, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner strenuously contended that the Petitioner has a unblemished service career as a doctor in the State of Odisha and he has been discharging his duties to the best of his ability in the various medical colleges in the State of Odisha. During his service Page 12 of 27 career, no Disciplinary Proceeding whatsoever was initiated against the present Petitioner. It was submitted by learned Senior Counsel that at no point of time any prosecution has been contemplated by the Appointing Authority or has been launched in any Court of Law against the present petitioner. Therefore, the two exceptions as indicated in the note are not applicable to the facts of the Petitioner’s case. Moreover, the grounds taken in the rejection order do not find place anywhere in Rule-42, which is the only provision that governs the subject to voluntary retirement from service by any Govt. servant. In view of the aforesaid factual position, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the application of the Petitioner has either been rejected mechanically or the Appointing Authority has rejected the same with an ulterior motive of not allowing the Petitioner to contest the ensuing Assembly election from Udala Constituency in the district of Mayurbhanj. He further submitted that such conduct of the Opposite Parties has deprived the Petitioner of an opportunity to serve the people of his locality and to represent them in the Odisha Legislative Assembly. It was also argued that the people of the locality are mostly tribal people belonging to SC and ST community. Therefore, a qualified person like the Petitioner who is well acquainted with their problems should not be deprived from Page 13 of 27 contesting the election and serving the people of said community. Learned Senior Counsel in course of his argument also cited the political allegiance of the Petitioner and submitted that since the Petitioner is likely to get a ticket from a National Party to contest the election, the Petitioner has been victimized and all attempts are being made to ensure that the Petitioner does not get an opportunity to contest the election. It was also argued that the petitioner by virtue of his good social work and public contacts is very popular in the locality, therefore, there exists a fair chance of success for the Petitioner in the event he gets an opportunity to contest such election. However, on consideration of such statement, this Court found that the same is hypothetical and there are no materials on record to support such contentions of learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner. In any case, this Court is required to examine the whole issue from the point of view of the rules that govern the subject matter of dispute in the present case. 17. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand filed a copy of the PWC of the Opposite Party No.1 along with a cover letter dated 04.05.2024. By referring to the above noted PWC, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Petitioner submitted his VRS application on 15.02.2024 on the Page 14 of 27 ground that he has to take care of his family owing to the ground of illness of his mother and wife. The PWC further reveals that the Opposite Party No.1 after careful examination of the application has been pleased to reject the same on the ground of acute shortage of faculties in the Govt. Medical colleges and hospitals in the State. They have also cited that due to such acute shortage of faculties, the Govt. of Odisha, H & FW Dept. is unable to meet the minimum standard requirement as prescribed by the National Medical Commission for the Govt. Medical colleges. Since, the VRS application is based on the personal grounds, the Opposite Party No.1 has rejected the same by proclaiming that the personal inconvenience of the Govt. servant is not larger than public interest involved in not accepting such VRS. 18. In the PWC it has also been stated that a Committee has been constituted by the H & FW Dept., vide order dated 11.08.2023, under the Chairmanship of the Special Secretary to Govt., H & F.W. Dept. to consider the applications for voluntary retirement/ resignations of medical officers of OMES Cadre. The PWC further reveals that the application of the Petitioner dated 14.11.2023 was placed before such committee. The committee, after taking into consideration the ground taken by the Petitioner that he wants to Page 15 of 27 participate in the Assembly election in 2024 as MLA from Udala Constituency in Mayurbhanj district, in the meeting held on 25.01.2024, recommended to not consider the case of the petitioner since there is an acute shortage of faculties in the Govt. Medical Colleges of the State. Furthermore, in the PWC, emphasis has been led on the element of public interest involved in not accepting the VRS application of the Petitioner and the fact that there is a dearth of faculties in Govt. medical colleges and hospitals in the State. 19. On a careful reading of the PWC submitted before this Court by the learned Additional Government Advocate, this Court is of the observation that the Opposite Parties have emphasized the public interest involved in not accepting the VRS application in different paragraphs of the PWC. On a careful reading of PWC, this Court found that, in sum and substance, the PWC depicts that the decision taken by the committee to not accept the application of the Petitioner seeking voluntary retirement is based on the ground of acute shortage of faculties in the State and the duty of the Govt. to fulfill the minimum prescribed standard requirement of the National Medical Commission. 20. In course of his argument, learned Additional Government Advocate referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Page 16 of 27 the State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. vs. Achal Singh reported in (2018) 17 SCC 578. In course of his argument, learned Additional Government Advocate places specific reference to para-36, 37, 41, 42 and 43 of the judgment. By referring to the above noted judgment, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that in an identical case (referred above) of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Govt. declined to accept the voluntary retirement application of the doctor on the ground of public interest and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the State and has specifically held that it cannot be said that the State has committed an illegality or its decision suffers from any arbitrariness. By referring to the aforesaid judgment, learned Additional Government Advocate further contended that a Govt. servant’s right to retire under part-III of the Constitution cannot be placed higher than the supreme right under the Constitution i.e. the is right to life of the citizens residing in the State. He further contended that the right of the Govt. servant is to be interpreted along with the right of the State Govt. under part-IV of the Constitution. Further, he specifically referred to Article-47, in part- IV of the Constitution to emphasize that the Govt. has to make an endeavor under the said Article to look after the provisions for Page 17 of 27 raising the level of health and nutrition of the people in the state. It was argued that the right enshrined under Article-19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India is subject to the interest of the general public, thus, such right can only be exercised as per the rules and not otherwise. Furthermore, referring to para-41 of the aforesaid judgment, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that since there is a scarcity of doctors in the State, the petitioner cannot resort to the ground of claiming equality with other similarly placed doctors whose application for voluntary retirement have been approved by the State Govt. in the recent past. It was also argued that there is no concept of negative equality in law, especially against the larger interest of the public and, in case such a plea is allowed, none may be left to serve the public at large. On the aforesaid grounds, learned Additional Govt. Advocate contended that the prayer of the Petitioner seeking voluntary retirement from Govt. service is unsustainable in law and, the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for voluntary retirement from service. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Govt. Advocate submitted that the present writ application is devoid of merit and accordingly, the same should be dismissed at the threshold. Page 18 of 27 21. Having regard to the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Govt. Advocate and, on a careful scrutiny of the materials placed before this Court, it is observed that this Court is required to examine the impugned rejection order in the light of the provisions contained in Rule-42 of the Odisha Pension Rules, 1992. So far the factual matrix involved in the present writ application is concerned, i.e. the date of joining of the petitioner, the number of years of service rendered by the petitioner etc., the same is not disputed by either side. While considering the case of the Petitioner, this Court by applying the provisions contained in Rule-42, which is the only provision that governs the subject of voluntary retirement from Govt. service, observes that the aforesaid rule provides that any govt. servant who has completed 20 years of qualifying service is eligible to submit an application for taking voluntary retirement from service. Moreover, while submitting such application the Govt. servant is required to give a notice of not less than three months to the Appointing Authority. It is not disputed by either side that the Petitioner is having eligibility to make such an application, given that he has completed 26 years of service and, that he had given a notice as required under Rule-42 (1) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. Page 19 of 27 22. With regard to the grounds for seeking voluntary retirement under Rule-42, this Court is of the observation that Rule-42 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 does not specify the ground on which an application can or cannot be made by the govt. servant to the Appointing Authority for seeking voluntary retirement. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the provision contained in Rule-42 (1) is an open provision subject to condition that the Govt. servant seeking voluntary retirement must have completed 20 years of qualifying service and must have given a notice of not less than three months to the Appointing Authority. Although, it is pertinent to mention that the minimum period of notice required can be waived by the Appointing Authority subject to the provisions contained in other sub-Sections of Rule-42. Since the same is not the subject matter of dispute in the present writ application, this Court is not dealing with such aspects in the present case. 23. Coming back to the facts of the present case, this Court observes that the Petitioner has minimum qualifying service period required for making an application for voluntary retirement. Further, it appears that he had given a notice of not less than three months to the Appointing Authority as required under Rule-42 (1) of the OCS Page 20 of 27 (Pension) Rules, 1992. However, voluntary retirement is subject to the acceptance of the same by the Appointing Authority. At this juncture, this Court would like to refer to the Note which has been quoted in the preceding paragraphs. The Note appended to Rule- 42(2) provides that generally the application seeking voluntary retirement by any Govt. employee may be accepted by the Appointing Authority. However, two exceptions have been specifically carved out under which the Appointing Authority is under no legal obligation to accept the voluntary retirement of the Govt. servant generally. Those two exceptions have also been specifically referred to in the preceding paragraphs. 24. On a careful consideration of the factual background of the Petitioner’s case and on the basis of the materials placed before this court, further taking into consideration the PWC filed by the Opposite Party No.1, this Court is of the considered view that the Opposite Party No.1 while rejecting the application of the petitioner has not taken the ground of pendency Disciplinary Proceeding or any prosecution having been contemplated or having been launched against the Petitioner. Therefore, the two exceptions carved out in the note to the general rule of accepting the VRS, subject to the satisfaction of the twin conditions laid down in Rule-42, do not Page 21 of 27 apply to the facts of the present petitioner’s case. Therefore, the case of the Petitioner does not fall within the exceptions as carved out in the note. As such, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the case of the Petitioner would be governed by the general principle as laid down in Rule-42, and as a result, such VRS application of the petitioner may be accepted generally. 25. With regard to the judgment relied upon by the learned Additional Govt. Advocate reported in (2018) 17 SCC 578, this Court on a careful reading of the said judgment observes that the main question that fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-mentioned judgment was as to whether under Rule-56 of the U. P. Fundamental Rules, an employee has an unfettered right to seek voluntary retirement by serving a notice of three months to the State Govt. or whether the State Govt. under the explanation attached to Rule-56 of the U. P. Fundamental Rules, is authorized to decline the prayer for voluntary retirement, under Clause-(c) of Rule-56 of the said rules, in the public interest. On a careful reading of the above-mentioned judgment, this Court observes that the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achal Singh’s case (supra) stands on a different background than the case of the present Petitioner. So far Achal Singh’s case is Page 22 of 27 concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was examining Clause-(c) of Rule-56 of the Fundamental Rules applicable to the employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The said Clause-(c) of Rule-56 confers a right on the appointing authority to require any government servant to retire after attaining the age of fifty years by giving a notice of three months, and a right on the government servant to voluntarily retire after attaining the age of 45 years or on completion of a qualifying service period of 20 years, by giving a notice of three months to the appointing authority. However, the explanation appended to the Rule-56 of Fundamental Rules of State of Uttar Pradesh provides that the decision of the Appointing Authority under clause-(c) shall be taken if it appears to the said authority to be in public interest. Moreover, the explanation (2) to Rule-56 of the U. P. Fundamental Rules further defines the materials that are to be taken into consideration by the Appointing Authority in order to determine whether the voluntary retirement under Rule-56(c) is in public interest. In the case of Achal Singh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on a detailed analysis of the Fundamental Rules made for U.P. State Govt. employees has categorically held that the State Govt. has the power to decline the prayer for voluntary retirement considering the public interest as provided in the rules, especially in Page 23 of 27 the context of the public interest as provided in the explanation to Rule-56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also referred to Article-47 and 51 (a) of the Constitution of India. On a careful analysis of the aforesaid judgment, this Court further observed that in para-42 of the above-mentioned judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring to some of the earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that it would depend upon the scheme of the rules as to whether the application for voluntary retirement is to be accepted or not by the Appointing Authority. It has also been observed that each and every judgment has to be considered in the light of the provisions which came up for consideration and question it has decided, language employed in the rules, and it cannot be said to be of general application as already observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & ors. vs. S.K. Singhal reported in (1999) 4 SCC 293. Therefore, the case of the Petitioner in the present case is to be considered in the light of the provisions contained in Rule-42 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. As such, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the judgment in Achal Singh’s case, which has been heavily relied upon by the learned Additional Govt. Advocate, is not applicable to the Page 24 of 27 facts of the present case as the same was considered and decided while interpreting Rule-56(C) of the Fundamental Rules meant for U.P. State Govt. employees and the explanation appended. 26. In view of the aforesaid analysis of law as well as keeping in view the factual matrix involved in the present writ application, this Court is of the considered view that Rule-42 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 does not specifically provide any ground on which an application seeking voluntary retirement from govt. service can be made by any of the govt. servant. Moreover, in view of the Note appended to Rule-42 (2) such application seeking for VRS is to be accepted generally and the exception to such general provision has also been provided in the Note appended to the said