Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1256/2025 on 16 February, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2026:UHC:991
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSS/1256/2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
1. Mr. Dileep Chandra Mathur, learned
counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Additional
C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. Petitioner was serving as Head of
Department in Government Polytechnic,
Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. By
means of this writ petition, she has
sought the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned order dated
27.01.2025 passed by respondent (contained as
Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondent to calculate
her services according to rule 6(c) of the
Uttarakhand Retirement Benfits Act, 2018
(Uttarakhand Act No. 17 of 2018) (as amended
by UK Act No. 34 of 2018) and paid proportional
pension, gratuity and other benefits to the
petitioner with interest.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner applied for
voluntary retirement, which was granted;
however, pension and other benefits are
not being released to her.
5. Learned State Counsel, however,
submits that petitioner did not apply for
voluntary retirement, and, in fact, she
resigned from service, as is apparent
from Annexure 4 to the writ petition.
6. The letter submitted by petitioner
before Secretary, Technical Education on
2026:UHC:991
20.09.2022 is on record as annexure no.
4 to the writ petition in that petitioner
had mentioned that she is not interested
in serving in the Department anymore
and due to personal reasons, she may be
permitted to resign from 20.12.2022.
7. It is not her case that she withdrew
her resignation before its acceptance by
the Competent Authority. The resignation
was accepted by the Competent
Authority w.e.f. 20.01.2023, as is
apparent from the document, which is
enclosed as Annexure 5 to the writ
petition.
8. Petitioner has challenged the order
issued by the Secretary, Technical
Education dated 20.01.2025, whereby
petitioner’s claim for pension was denied.
Petitioner has challenged rejection of her
claim for pension.
9. This Court does not find any reason
to interfere in the impugned order. Rule
56(c) of U.P. Fundamental Rules, Volume
II (Parts 2 to 4) deals with compulsory
retirement as well as voluntary
retirement, which is extracted below:-
“56(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in
clause (a) or clause (b), the appointing authority
may, at any time by notice to any Government
servant (whether permanent or temporary),
without assigning any reason, require him to
retire after he attains the age of fifty years or
such Government servant may by notice to the
appointing authority voluntarily retire at any time
after attaining the age of forty-five years or after
he has completed qualifying service of twenty
years.”
10. From perusal of the said Rule, it is
revealed that a Government Servant,
who has completed forty-five years of
age or has completed qualifying service
2026:UHC:991
of twenty years alone can apply for
voluntary retirement.
11. In the affidavit dated 23.07.2025,
filed in support of the writ petition, the
age of the petitioner is mentioned as 46
years. Petitioner applied for relinquishing
her employment on 20.09.2022; as such,
her age, at the time of her making
application, was less than 45 years. She
was appointed as Lecturer in Technical
Education Department, vide order dated
01.11.2004; as such, she had not
completed the required length of service
i.e., twenty years, on 20.09.2022 when
she made the application. Since
voluntary retirement is governed by
statutory rules and the right to apply for
voluntary retirement flows from second-
half of Rule 56(c) of U.P. Fundamental
Rules, Volume II (Parts 2 to 4),
therefore, a Government servant, who
meets the requirement of Rule 56(c)
alone can apply for voluntary retirement.
In her application, petitioner did not use
the expression “voluntary retirement”
and she mentioned that she is resigning
from service.
12. Civil Service Regulations in Rule
418(a) provide that upon resignation
from public service or dismissal or
removal therefrom, entails forfeiture of
past service. Rule 418(a) of the Civil
Service Regulations is extracted below:-
“418(a) Regulation of the public service, or
dismissal or removal from it for misconduct,
insolvency in-efficiency not due to age, or failure
to pass a prescribed examination entails forfeiture
of past service.”
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon Uttarakhand Retirement
Benefits Act, 2018 for contending that
2026:UHC:991
Rule 56(c) of U.P. Fundamental Rules,
Volume II (Parts 2 to 4) would not be
applicable. The said contention is devoid
of merit. Section 1(2) of the said Act
provides that the Act shall apply in case
of completion of superannuation age,
voluntary retirement and compulsory
retirement in respect of persons who
were appointed under the State before
1st October, 2005. The eligibility and
other conditions for voluntary retirement
are not mentioned in The Uttarakhand
Retirement Benefits Act, 2018; therefore,
these aspects will be governed by U.P.
Fundamental Rules. There is nothing in
the Act to indicate that the provisions of
the U.P. Fundamental Rules, dealing with
voluntary retirement, have been
superseded.
14. Thus, in the considered opinion of
this Court, the right to apply for
voluntary retirement and eligibility
therefor would continue to flow from
latter half of Rule 56(c) of U.P.
Fundamental Rules, Volume II (Part 2 to
4), notwithstanding enforcement of U.P.
Retirement Benefits Act, 2018.
15. Even otherwise, also, from perusal
of Annexure 4 to the writ petition, it is
revealed that petitioner had tendered
resignation and she had not requested
for voluntary retirement. The Competent
Authority also treated Annexure 4 as
resignation and not a request for
voluntary retirement. Petitioner has not
raised grievance against the decision
taken by the Secretary, Technical
Education, whereby her request was
treated as resignation. Without meeting
the conditions of eligibility, as mentioned
in the relevant Statutory Rules, petitioner
cannot claim pension. Pension is a
2026:UHC:991
statutory right and the statute provides
for forfeiture of pension in case of
resignation from service.
16. Thus, the relief as claimed by the
petitioner cannot be granted. However,
the admissible dues, if any, including
G.P.F., shall be released to the petitioner,
as per applicable rules.
17. With the aforesaid directions, the
writ petition stands disposed of.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
16.02.2026
Aswal
NITI RAJ Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512
SINGH ASWAL
ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE
58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
Date: 2026.02.17 03:44:19 -08’00’
