Feel free to contribute on burning issues concerning the armed forces. Contributions would be acknowledged - Use the 'Comments' tab or email navdeepsingh.india[at]gmail.com. No operational/business/commercial matters to be discussed please. Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained. Information on this blog is opinion based and is neither official nor in the form of an advice. This is a pro bono online journal in public service related to issues, policies and benefits, and the idea behind it is to educate and not to create controversy or to incite. Be soft in your language, respect Copyrights.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Where rules provide for approval, voluntary retirement cannot be claimed as a matter of right : Supreme Court

This may come as gloomy news for those seeking ‘voluntary’ or ‘pre-mature’ retirement as a matter of right.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where rules specifically provide for approval of request of voluntary retirement by a particular (competent) authority, then such retirement cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered this decision while adjudicating a case involving an employee of Air India.

The ruling is in consonance with earlier law laid down by the higher judiciary on the subject. Even prior to the latest ruling, it had been consistently ruled by Hon’ble Courts that where rules provided discretion of the authorities in grant of voluntary retirement, it (retirement) could not be claimed as a matter of right. Of course, it has also been held time and again that such discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or discriminately by the concerned authorities and the ‘Right to Equality’ can also not be infringed in this regard.

More can be seen on the ruling by clicking here.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

why some people leave army on similair ground and some cannot .u cant continue organisation with disgruntled men making up for deficency does not mean keeping disgrnntled people in organisation . If somebody wants to go prematurely he should be let go. Ithis can be a check on ailing system.

Doctor said...

Dear Navdeep,
I don't think this really affects the armed forces since Voluntary retirement/Premature retirement was always granted subject to prior approval of the Govt (which at least in case of doctors/pilots etc was almost never given).
What would be interesting is the view of the court on Resignations rather than PR applications. Almost all other organizations have nothing much to prevent employees who RESIGN from leaving (since they are not claiming pension/benefits).
However the Armed forces have always treated both resignation and PR at the same level despite obvious differences between the two.
I don't know what is the legality of this position, but that is what is being done until now.
If possible please give your opinion on this.
Thank You.

force1 said...

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,
remember the '69 number by eagles, 'hotel California', u can walk in anytime, but u can never leave'.So u may leave the army only in a cofin or on a bier.Why should anyone want to leave any other service?so the supreme court cannot actually believe that there maybe people who want to leave the 'benefits and the priveleges of the armed forces'!

Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh said...

Force 1 Sir, the SC ju'ment has no concern whatsover with the Army :-)

Psycho Doc said...

Sir,All the same-it has persuasive value. Hotel California is the best reflection of the truth. Point to ponder-If there was an open exit policy-let us say till date X, and only after a specified number of years thereafter, how many people would leave? And would not the organisation be a better place with less dead wood? Go, if you want to should be the credo-but not perpetually.

Psycho Doc said...

To add t the earlier thought-let us also think about the organisation. someone who wants to leave a minute after completion of PG/CPL hours/academic qualifications courtesy the fauj should have an exemplary penalty.

Psycho Doc said...

Personally, I do not encourage unwilling passengers, but that is highly personal...

leaharun said...

I am a pilot who has been told that his flying career is over. I have been passed over once and now employed in sundry jobs out of my core competence. I do not have any career prospects and hence will just chug along wasting my life and productivity. should I not be allowed to retire prematurely and reconstruct my career in 2nd inning and contribute positively to nation building. pse comment

Anonymous said...

If u do PG i think u have a bond and if one leaves he is charged for it. I am off the opinion that if somebody has served and wants to live life according to his wish i think he deserves to make his life afterall he has given his youth , energy to country rest left over he wants to do for his ambitions . I am talking about leaving service after 20yrs. why not? then country should not complaint afterall after a certain time one has to fullfill and answer own self also. I know many doctors wanting to leave after 20-21 yrs nothing wrong... they have given more than what is expected. atleast higher up should take a view , We are organisation with high absorbing power and new fresh blood can take their place. U cant have disgruntled men atleast new crop can always take care. Serve sincerely with full enthusiasm and zeal till 20 yrs and then walk off gracefully to fulfill your own dreams. organisation does not suffer . Organisation is very great and it will always stand high.

Anonymous said...

There are about 42 IAF Medical officers(Gp Capt-TS) who have not received the pay of new payscales and a large number of them have not even got the pension of any kind 8 months after retiring (PR or Superannuation). There is a confusion on the fixation of pay for those who had completed 24 yrs of service (qualifying for Gp Capt-TS)earlier than the date of 16 Dec 2004 when the TS rules were implemented. 6th PC policy amended in Dec 2008 removed the diff between TS and Select Gp Capt but this has not been understood by DCDA. Could someone please clarify this? observer1in@yahoo.com