Cuttack: Orissa high court on Monday ruled that issuing a retirement order prior to the notice period given by an employee seeking VRS is “not tenable”.

Justice M S Raman gave the ruling while declaring “illegal and unlawful” the order allowing Bhupendra Kumar Mohanty, assistant director (inspection), directorate of export promotion and marketing, to voluntarily retire from service.

After completing 31 years of service, Mohanty submitted an application for voluntary retirement on July 3, 2023, specifying his willingness to retire from service with effect from Oct 31, 2023, without indicating curtailment of the notice period.

Later, Mohanty made an application for withdrawal of his VRS application on Sept 16, 2023. However, the appointing authority in the MSME department on Sept 18, issued an order allowing him to retire with effect from Sept 30.

Mohanty filed a petition challenging the VRS order. As the petitioner specified a three-month notice period for taking VRS, Justice Raman opined that “there is no vested power available with the appointing authority to suo motu spring into action by curtailing the notice period”.

Accordingly, Justice Raman directed the appointing authority “to reinstate the petitioner in his service and treat him in continuous service and give him all benefits, including arrears of salary”.

“The action of the appointing authority in accepting the application/notice desiring to retire voluntarily is held to be premature. Therefore, the orders are declared illegal and unlawful, being contrary to the provisions of Rule 42 of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, and set aside,” Justice Raman ruled.

While stating that “the orders cannot be held to be tenable because they are not supported by reason,” Justice Raman further observed the acceptance of the retirement notice prior to the effective date specified by the petitioner would significantly prejudice his position.

“This could lead to adverse civil consequences, limiting the petitioner’s ability to request a waiver/curtailment of the notice period,” Justice Raman said, adding, “Furthermore, it would restrict his opportunity to consider a cooling-off period, which is essential for contemplating the possibility of withdrawing his notice desiring voluntary retirement from a particular date.”