The Punjab and Haryana High Court has called upon the state government to consider issuing appropriate instructions to all departments and authorities concerned to ensure that requests for voluntary retirement or resignation are examined strictly under the applicable service and pension rules before they are accepted.Justice Namit Kumar made the observations while dismissing a petition filed by an Assistant Town Planner, denied the pensionary benefits, including gratuity and proportionate pension after leaving service.“Before parting with the judgment, this Court deems it appropriate to make certain observations for consideration at the administrative level,” the court observed, while directing its Registry to forward the judgment to the Chief Secretaries of Punjab; Haryana and Chandigarh “for consideration and for taking such appropriate administrative action as may be deemed necessary”.Justice Kumar asserted that the controversy appeared to have arisen essentially on account of the manner in which the petitioner’s request seeking “voluntary retirement” was dealt with. The petitioner, admittedly, did not fulfill the statutory conditions prescribed for voluntary retirement under the applicable service rules. Yet his request came to be processed and eventually accepted as resignation by referring to a provision which did not confer upon him any such right. The subsequent dispute regarding his entitlement to pensionary benefits culminated in the present litigation.“The present case highlights the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between voluntary retirement and resignation, as the two expressions have distinct legal consequences under the service and pension rules. A request seeking voluntary retirement cannot be casually processed or accepted without first examining whether the employee fulfills the statutory conditions prescribed for such retirement,” Justice Kumar asserted.The Bench added an application for resignation could not be treated as one for voluntary retirement merely on account of the nomenclature used by the employee. “It is, therefore, considered appropriate to place the observations and suggestions before the State Government for consideration at the administrative level, with a view to preventing recurrence of such instances and ensuring strict adherence to the applicable statutory rules,” Justice Kumar asserted.The Bench added that the competent authority, before accepting a request for voluntary retirement, “shall” specifically verify and record the employee’s eligibility with regard to the requisite qualifying service, notice period and all other conditions prescribed under the applicable Rules. “The order accepting such request should clearly mention the precise statutory provision under which the voluntary retirement is being accepted,” Justice Kumar observed.The Bench added that the authorities “shall” also ensure that the expressions ‘voluntary retirement’ and ‘resignation’ were not used interchangeably or inconsistently in the same order or while processing the same case.“The legal consequences flowing from the two modes of cessation from service being materially different, the nature of cessation must be clearly determined and recorded in accordance with the applicable Rules,” Justice Kumar ruled.The Bench added the competent authority would not accept a request as voluntary retirement merely on the basis of the terminology used in the application, in cases where an employee sought voluntary retirement, but did not fulfill the statutory conditions.“The employee’s request shall be dealt with strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, and the consequences thereof shall be clearly communicated to the employee. It is clarified that the observations are intended only as administrative suggestions for strengthening the mechanism governing cases of voluntary retirement and resignation and for ensuring strict compliance with the statutory service rules,” Justice Kumar asserted.The Bench was assisted in the matter by advocates Dhiraj Chawla, Mehak Sharma, Ankit Kumar and Garima Nayyar, along with State counsel Akhil Kamra.