ups_00820 — Under Rule 43(3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, the Applicant's voluntary retirement became effective automatically since no rejection order was issued before the notice period expired. Absence of timely decision implies deemed voluntary retirement, entitling the employee to pensionary benefits

UPS

Under Rule 43(3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, the Applicant's voluntary retirement became effective automatically since no rejection order was issued before the notice period expired. Absence of timely decision implies deemed voluntary retirement, entitling the employee to pensionary benefits — The employee informed the institute about his travel details, submitted a request for voluntary retirement, and was directed to rejoin duty despite repeated attempts to resolve the issue regarding no... — Facts:The Applicant joined the Respondent institute as a Senior Resident and rose to the position of Professor of Cardiac Anaesthesia. He was granted Ex-India (Extraordinary) Leave for two years from 9-5-2019 to 8-5-2021 to serve as Visiting Professor at the University of Manitoba, Canada, which was later extended up to 8-5-2022. Before expiry of the extended leave, the Applicant requested leave of the kind due from 8-5-2022 to 30-6-2022 to facilitate his return and rejoining, but no response was received until 21-6-2022, when his request was rejected and he was directed to resume duty immediately. He informed the institute of his travel details and rejoined on 30-6-2022. Subsequently, he submitted a request for Voluntary Retirement on 13-7-2022 with effect from 12-10-2022. Although his qualifying service was verified as 20 years, 8 months, and 13 days, making him eligible for VRS, the Respondents treated certain foreign assignment periods as non-qualifying service and withheld the decision regarding his alleged unauthorized absence from 9-5-2022 to 29-6-2022. Consequently, the Applicant handed over the charge of the office of Professor Cardiac Anaesthesia and Professor In-charge Cardiac Anaesthesia Division on 12-10-2022 afternoon to Prof. Bhupesh Kumar after completion of 90 days VRS notice. Thereafter, the Applicant received communication, dated 14-10-2022 from Respondent No. 3 informing him that his request for VRS was under process. Consequently, the Respondents did not give effect to his voluntary retirement and withheld his pensionary and other terminal benefits. Despite repeated representations by the Applicant, the matter remained unresolved, and he was directed to rejoin duty vide communication, dated 15-4-2023. The Applicant contended that the Respondents acted illegally and violated Rule 43 (3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, which limits the grounds for refusing voluntary retirement. Delay or denial of leave is not a valid reason for refusal. The Applicant further contended that as the competent authority did not reject the request before the notice period ended on 12-10-2022, the Applicant's voluntary retirement became effective automatically from that date. The Respondents, in their written statement, have opposed the Applicant's claim, stating that his request for leave from 9-5-2022 to 30-6-2022 was duly considered but not approved by the competent authority and this was communicated to him on 21-6-2022. Although the Applicant submitted his joining report on 30-6-2022, it has not yet been accepted, and the matter has been referred to the Union Minister of Health and Family Welfare, who is also the President of the Institute. The Respondents further clarified that the certificate, dated 11-10-2022 showing the Applicant's qualifying service of 20 years, 8 months, and 13 days was only a verification document issued to process his VRS request. Since it was issued on 11-10-2022, the case could not be placed before the Governing Body before 12-10-2022, the intended date of retirement. The Applicant was informed on 14-10-2022 that his VRS case was still under process. It was further stated that the VRS request of the Applicant has not been rejected, hence Rule 43 (3) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 does not apply. Vigilance clearance is still awaited as reports on a pending complaint regarding his alleged private practice and Canadian permanent residency are being sought and the issue has been referred to the Union Minister vide U.O. Note, dated 15-7-2023. In his rejoinder, the Applicant contested the Respondents' objection regarding vigilance clearance, arguing that the 2018-19 complaint could not be kept pending for over four years. He stated that all issues were clarified to the Institute by both himself and the Head of Anaesthesiology, University of Manitoba, following which PGIMER and the Institute's President approved his third year of Ex-India leave with permission to accept add on position of Professor, Anaesthesiology at Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada vide letter, dated 27-7-2021. During the pendency of the case, the Respondents issued a show-cause notice, dated 12-10-2023 on three issues, to which the Applicant had submitted a detailed reply on 1-11-2023.

UPS

Under Rule 43(3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, the Applicant's voluntary retirement became effective automatically since no rejection order was issued before the notice period expired. Absence of timely decision implies deemed voluntary retirement, entitling the employee to pensionary benefits — The employee informed the institute about his travel details, submitted a request for voluntary retirement, and was directed to rejoin duty despite repeated attempts to resolve the issue regarding no... — Facts:The Applicant joined the Respondent institute as a Senior Resident and rose to the position of Professor of Cardiac Anaesthesia. He was granted Ex-India (Extraordinary) Leave for two years from 9-5-2019 to 8-5-2021 to serve as Visiting Professor at the University of Manitoba, Canada, which was later extended up to 8-5-2022. Before expiry of the extended leave, the Applicant requested leave of the kind due from 8-5-2022 to 30-6-2022 to facilitate his return and rejoining, but no response was received until 21-6-2022, when his request was rejected and he was directed to resume duty immediately. He informed the institute of his travel details and rejoined on 30-6-2022. Subsequently, he submitted a request for Voluntary Retirement on 13-7-2022 with effect from 12-10-2022. Although his qualifying service was verified as 20 years, 8 months, and 13 days, making him eligible for VRS, the Respondents treated certain foreign assignment periods as non-qualifying service and withheld the decision regarding his alleged unauthorized absence from 9-5-2022 to 29-6-2022. Consequently, the Applicant handed over the charge of the office of Professor Cardiac Anaesthesia and Professor In-charge Cardiac Anaesthesia Division on 12-10-2022 afternoon to Prof. Bhupesh Kumar after completion of 90 days VRS notice. Thereafter, the Applicant received communication, dated 14-10-2022 from Respondent No. 3 informing him that his request for VRS was under process. Consequently, the Respondents did not give effect to his voluntary retirement and withheld his pensionary and other terminal benefits. Despite repeated representations by the Applicant, the matter remained unresolved, and he was directed to rejoin duty vide communication, dated 15-4-2023. The Applicant contended that the Respondents acted illegally and violated Rule 43 (3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, which limits the grounds for refusing voluntary retirement. Delay or denial of leave is not a valid reason for refusal. The Applicant further contended that as the competent authority did not reject the request before the notice period ended on 12-10-2022, the Applicant's voluntary retirement became effective automatically from that date. The Respondents, in their written statement, have opposed the Applicant's claim, stating that his request for leave from 9-5-2022 to 30-6-2022 was duly considered but not approved by the competent authority and this was communicated to him on 21-6-2022. Although the Applicant submitted his joining report on 30-6-2022, it has not yet been accepted, and the matter has been referred to the Union Minister of Health and Family Welfare, who is also the President of the Institute. The Respondents further clarified that the certificate, dated 11-10-2022 showing the Applicant's qualifying service of 20 years, 8 months, and 13 days was only a verification document issued to process his VRS request. Since it was issued on 11-10-2022, the case could not be placed before the Governing Body before 12-10-2022, the intended date of retirement. The Applicant was informed on 14-10-2022 that his VRS case was still under process. It was further stated that the VRS request of the Applicant has not been rejected, hence Rule 43 (3) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 does not apply. Vigilance clearance is still awaited as reports on a pending complaint regarding his alleged private practice and Canadian permanent residency are being sought and the issue has been referred to the Union Minister vide U.O. Note, dated 15-7-2023. In his rejoinder, the Applicant contested the Respondents' objection regarding vigilance clearance, arguing that the 2018-19 complaint could not be kept pending for over four years. He stated that all issues were clarified to the Institute by both himself and the Head of Anaesthesiology, University of Manitoba, following which PGIMER and the Institute's President approved his third year of Ex-India leave with permission to accept add on position of Professor, Anaesthesiology at Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada vide letter, dated 27-7-2021. During the pendency of the case, the Respondents issued a show-cause notice, dated 12-10-2023 on three issues, to which the Applicant had submitted a detailed reply on 1-11-2023.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text