Once Voluntary Retirement Takes Effect by Default, the Employer Cannot Insist on Technical Resignation
A significant ruling on service law affirms employee autonomy and restricts arbitrary administrative interference in retirement decisions.;
Voluntary Retirement (VR) is a well-established exit mechanism that enables government servants to retire from service before reaching the age of superannuation, provided certain conditions are met. The mechanism is designed to give employees autonomy over their career choices, particularly when they seek better opportunities or a service change.
However, disputes arise when employers adopt a restrictive interpretation of VR rules, delay processing applications, or attempt to compel employees to submit technical resignations instead of recognising the automatic legal effect of VR.
A significant judgment of the Delhi High Court in Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 10133/2020 (decided on 7 November 2025) has re-emphasised these principles. The Court clarified that when voluntary retirement becomes effective by default—due to non-rejection within the stipulated period—employers cannot later insist on a technical resignation, nor can they deny pensionary benefits accruing from VR. The judgment reinforces employee protections and curbs administrative arbitrariness.
Voluntary Retirement as an Exit Mechanism
Voluntary retirement schemes (VRS) and provisions under service rules allow government servants to retire after completing a minimum qualifying service, usually 20 years. Rule 48A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which applied in the present case, permits voluntary retirement after 20 years of qualifying service, after giving three months’ notice.
Indian courts have consistently held that:
- A valid VR request cannot be arbitrarily withheld.
- If the rules provide that VR becomes effective after a certain period unless rejected, then the employer must communicate a rejection within that time.
- After VR takes effect, the employer cannot impose additional conditions like insisting on resignation.
Delhi High Court judgment continues and reinforces this jurisprudence.
Factual Background of the Case
Employee’s Service and Selection for a New Post
The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar, was serving as a Pradhan Sahayak Engineer (PSE) in the Indian Coast Guard. On 15 August 2016, he applied for the post of Senior Scientific Officer Grade-II (Electrical) at the Directorate General of Aeronautical Quality Assurance (DGAQA), a Central Government organisation. After clearing UPSC’s selection process, his name was formally recommended on 1 June 2017.
Application for Voluntary Retirement
On 22 June 2017, the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement, clearly stating that:
- His VR should take effect either from the date he receives an appointment in DGAQA, or within three months of acceptance of his VR request, whichever is earlier.
This conditional request is critical, as the Court’s reasoning hinges upon the employee’s own chosen effective date.
His application was properly forwarded through superior officers on 30 June and 8 August 2017.
Employer’s Delay and Erroneous Objections
On the 94th day after the VR request, the Bureau of Naviks (BUVIK) wrote to the petitioner (26 September 2017), stating that his application did not annex the appointment letter. The Court later described this objection as “not issued with proper application of mind” because the employee could not possibly attach the appointment letter when he himself had requested that VR should take effect upon such appointment.
Even after this objection, the Coast Guard merely extended the tentative date of retirement; they still did not reject the VR request.
On 24 November 2017, the respondents instructed that the petitioner should apply for “technical resignation”. Importantly, this again did not reject the VR application.
Appointment by DGAQA and Later Developments
- DGAQA issued the appointment letter on 18 January 2018.
- The petitioner’s headquarters informed BUVIK of this appointment on 1 February 2018.
- Only after this, on 8 February 2018, did the Coast Guard tell the petitioner to submit a technical resignation or continue in service.
Under pressure, he submitted a technical resignation on 15 February 2018, was discharged on 5 March 2018, and joined DGAQA on 12 March 2018.
Issues
- When Does Voluntary Retirement Become Effective?
The Court had to determine:
- Whether the VR request, which was never rejected, became effective by default; and
- Whether the employer could thereafter force the employee to submit a technical resignation.
Court’s Analysis
1. VR Request Was Never Rejected Within the Applicable Period
A critical fact noted by the Court was:
- No rejection of the voluntary retirement application was communicated until after 1 February 2018.
In this period, the petitioner became eligible—under his own conditions—for VR to take effect.
Two possible triggers were present:
- Appointment to DGAQA on 18 January 2018, or
- Intimation of that appointment to BUVIK on 1 February 2018.
Either of these triggered VR automatically.
Thus, the Court held the latest possible effective date to be:
1 February 2018 — the date on which the employer was informed of his appointment to DGAQA.
2. Application of Supreme Court Precedent: S.K. Singhal v. State of Haryana
The Court applied the principle from S.K. Singhal (1999) 4 SCC 293, where the Supreme Court held:
- When service rules provide that VR becomes effective after a notice period unless rejected, non-rejection within that period leads to automatic retirement.
Delhi High Court noted a slight difference in the language of the applicable rule but held that the principle still applied:
“Applying the principle in S.K. Singhal, the petitioner stood voluntarily retired from service on 1 February 2018.”
3. Employer Cannot Impose New Conditions After VR Takes Effect
Once VR had already become operational, the later demand for “technical resignation” (8 February 2018) was legally irrelevant.
The Court categorically stated:
- Subsequent communications requiring technical resignation cannot undo the effect of VR that has already taken place.
- Any compliance under compulsion (as the petitioner later resigned) cannot erase the legal effect of automatic voluntary retirement.
Court’s Final Directions
Delhi High Court conclusively declared:
- The petitioner shall be treated as having voluntarily retired from 1 February 2018.
- He is entitled to all pensionary benefits under Rule 48A of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
- All consequential monetary benefits must be released within three months, failing which 12% interest will apply.
This strong direction underscores the seriousness of non-compliance.
Significance of the Judgment
1. Reinforces Protection of Employees Against Administrative Delay
The Court reiterates that once an employee has fulfilled the requirements, the employer cannot delay or frustrate the process by:
- Not responding to a VR request, or
- Demanding additional documentation or procedural steps after the effective date.
Government departments often cite technicalities or delay communication; this judgment makes clear that silence or inaction cannot prejudice an employee.
2. Clarifies the Distinction Between Technical Resignation and Voluntary Retirement
These two forms of separation are often misunderstood.
Voluntary Retirement (VR)
- Leads to pension under CCS (Pension) Rules.
- Qualifying service remains intact.
- It is triggered by notice period expiry / accepted dates.
Technical Resignation
- Usually for employees moving within government service.
- Does not give pension benefits upon tender.
- Treated differently under pay, leave, and service continuity rules.
The judgment clarifies that an employer cannot force an employee to substitute VR with technical resignation, especially after VR has already taken effect.
3. Sets a Benchmark for Conditional Voluntary Retirement Requests
The petitioner had smartly worded his VR notice:
“Effective from date of appointment in DGAQA OR 3 months from acceptance, whichever is earlier.”
This allowed the Court to determine the effective date precisely.
Employees may adopt such conditional wording to avoid uncertainty.
4. Ensures Accountability and Avoids Arbitrary Administrative Action
The Court criticised the employer’s communication, which insisted on attaching the appointment letter to the VR application (which was impossible, as per the applicant’s own conditions). This reinforces that administrative decisions must be logical, timely, and legally sound, or else they will not hold.
Conclusion
Delhi High Court’s ruling in Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. reaffirms that voluntary retirement, once it becomes effective under the employee’s notice and applicable rules, cannot be nullified or altered by the employer through later administrative demands, such as insisting on a technical resignation.
The Court made it clear that when an employer fails to reject a VR request within the prescribed or stipulated period—and especially when the VR is linked to a specific event such as appointment to another post—the retirement takes effect automatically. The employee becomes entitled to all pensionary and consequential benefits from that date.
Administrative delays, misinterpretations, or procedural objections raised after VR has already taken effect cannot override the statutory rights of the employee, ensuring that government servants are protected against arbitrary or coercive actions once their voluntary retirement has matured into a legally effective separation from service.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams