
Pension Rules Prevailing When Voluntary Retirement Is Sought Apply To Govt Officer, Not Rules As On Expiry Of Notice Period: MP High Court
Live LawThe Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that in cases of voluntary retirement, the Pension Rules as on the date of application of voluntary retirement shall be applicable and not the Rules prevailing on the date of expiration of the notice period of the government servant. A single judge bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla observed, “In case of voluntary retirement of an employee, the Rules prevailing on the date of application/notice under Rule 42 will be applicable and not the Rules prevailing on the date of expiration of notice period.” The court said, “The amendment in Rule 42 & 42-A of Pension Rules shall operate prospectively and not retrospectively.” The issue raised before the court was “Whether in the case of voluntary retirement of an employee, the Rules on the date of application/notice under Rule 42 of Pension Rules or the Rules prevailing on the date when one-month notice period expires would be applicable?”. The court said, “If the notice of voluntary retirement is not withdrawn before the date indicated in the said notice of voluntary retirement, it will automatically become operative from the date indicated in the notice of voluntary retirement and the Government Servant would be retired voluntarily from the date of his choice indicated in the said notice.” The court further observed, “The intention of the Rule making authority is to confer an absolute and indefeasible right to the government servant to get voluntarily retire after completing qualifying services from the date on his choice indicated in the aforesaid notice.” The present petition was filed seeking quashing of orders by which the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement as per the unamended Rule of 42-A of M.P. On April 7, 2006 Rule 42 and 42-A of the Pension Rules were amended and as per Rule 42 the minimum qualifying service for seeking voluntary retirement was raised from 15 years to 20 years. The said amendment would not be applicable retrospectively as an indefeasible right for seeking voluntary retirement under Rule 42 of Pension Rules has already vested on the date of filing of application itself.
History of this topic

Orissa HC Recommends Imposing Restrictions On Voluntary Retirement Of Govt Doctors, Issues Directions For Better Working Conditions
Live Law
Employer Cannot Indefinitely Withhold Voluntary Retirement Without Valid Grounds: Delhi HC
Live Law
'Petitioner's Voluntary Retirement Could Not Be Cancelled After Being Accepted By Respondents Once', Delhi High Court
Live Law
After 33 Yrs Of Service, Meghalaya High Court Treats Teacher's Resignation As Voluntary Retirement, Entitling Her To Pensionary Benefits
Live Law
Pension & Other Retiral Benefit Rules Have To Be Interpreted Liberally: Meghalaya High Court
Live Law![Right To Retire Can’t Be Superior To Right To Life, SC Upholds UP Govt Decision Denying Voluntary Retirement To Doctors [Read Judgment]](https://www.livelaw.in/cms/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/arun-mishra-abdul-nazeer-1.jpg)
Right To Retire Can’t Be Superior To Right To Life, SC Upholds UP Govt Decision Denying Voluntary Retirement To Doctors [Read Judgment]
Live Law
Supreme Court notice on pension to former legislators
Deccan ChronicleDiscover Related







![[U.P Govt Servant Seniority Rules] No Provision For Finding Authority To Redetermine Seniority After Final List Has Been Prepared: Allahabad High Court](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2025/03/07/590157-justice-alok-mathur.jpg)
![[U.P Govt Servant Seniority Rules] No Provision For Finding Authority To Redetermine Seniority After Final List Has Been Prepared: Allahabad High Court](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2025/03/07/590157-justice-alok-mathur.jpg)





































