Union of India and others vs Smt. Saroj Chaudhary and another

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—Union of India and others have filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 25.8.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal''), whereby Original Application No.772-CH of 2011 filed by respondent No.1-Smt. Saroj Chaudhary was allowed and the order dated 22.7.2011 (Annexure A-1) passed by petitioner No.2 rejecting the prayer of respondent No.1 for withdrawal of the voluntary retirement notice before the effective date of retirement, has been quashed. Undisputedly, two employees, namely, Balbir Singh and Smt. Saroj Chaudhary (respondent No.1 herein), who were working as Senior Accountants in the office of petitioner No.2, submitted three months notices for voluntary retirement from the service stating therein that they had completed 20 years of service and due to cultivation of agricultural land, as stated by Balbir Singh, and due to unavoidable circumstances, as stated by Smt. Saroj Chaudhary, it was difficult for them to continue their present job and they be allowed to retire voluntarily w.e.f. 24.8.2011 and 1.8.2011, respectively. Their voluntary retirement notices were accepted by petitioner No.2 on 21.4.2011 and 31.5.2011, respectively.

Before the due date of voluntary retirement, both the employees made a request to petitioner No.2 to withdraw their voluntary retirement notices, but petitioner No.2 vide order dated 22.7.2011 rejected the prayer of both the employees for withdrawal of their voluntary retirement notices whereupon both the employees filed separate Original Applications before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal, while relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr, and Shambhu Murari Sinha Versus Project and Development India, 2000(2) SCT 807 allowed O.A. No.835-CH of 2011 filed by Balbir Singh vide order dated 23.8.2011 and set aside the order passed by petitioner No.2 rejecting the prayer of the employee for withdrawal of voluntary retirement notice, and the said employee was ordered to be deemed to have been in employment with effect from the date of withdrawal of the voluntary retirement notice. Two days thereafter, O.A. No. 772-CH of 2011 filed by respondent No.1-Smt. Saroj Chaudhary was allowed by the Tribunal by following the decision of Balbir Singh Versus Union of India and others (O.A. No.835-CH of 2011 decided on 23.8.2011) on the same reasoning.

It is an admitted fact that the Union of India and others challenged the decision of the Tribunal in case of Balbir Singh by filing CWP No.22149-CAT of 2011 and the said writ petition was taken up for hearing and when the Court was going to dismiss the writ petition on merits, Learned Counsel for the petitioners got the same dismissed as withdrawn on November 30, 2011, in which the following order was passed:-

After arguing for some time and when this Court pronounce the order of dismissal, Learned Counsel for petitioners wishes to withdraw the present petition.

Prayer allowed.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

Subsequently, the afore-said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing another writ petition (CWP No.6429 of 2012) which was dismissed vide order dated April 04, 2012 and it was held that the second petition against the same order was not maintainable.

The present writ petition has been filed against the decision of the Tribunal in case of Smt. Saroj Chaudhary whose Original Application was also allowed on August 25, 2011 on the same reasoning as was allowed in case of Balbir Singh.

During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the petitioners could not point out any difference between the case of Balbir Singh and Smt. Saroj Chaudhary. Both are the employees of the same department. Both Smt. Saroj Chaudhary and Balbir Singh had submitted the voluntary retirement notices on 18.4.2011 and 26.5.2011, respectively. Subsequently, before the expiry of three months period they made a prayer for withdrawal of the same. However, the Learned Counsel argued that in case of Balbir Singh the Tribunal has not considered the true impact of Rule 48-A(4) of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 which reads as under:-

48-A. Retirement on completion of 20 years'' qualifying service

(1) xx xx xx xx

(2) xx xx xx xx

(3) xx xx xx xx

(4) Government servant, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority:

Provided that the request for withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement.

According to the Learned Counsel, the competent authority is fully empowered to preclude the respondent from withdrawing the voluntary retirement notice in public interest under the said provision. In our opinion, the said contention cannot be accepted. The Proviso to the aforesaid Rule 48-A(4) clearly provides that the request for withdrawal of voluntary retirement notice shall be made by the Government servant before the intended date of his retirement. This Rule does not make any difference in the legal proposition laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid two judgments wherein it has been held that if the withdrawal of voluntary retirement notice has been made before the intended date of retirement, the same cannot be declined. The employee, who had served the notice for voluntary retirement seeking retirement with effect from a particular date, has a legal right to withdraw or revoke the said notice before the effective date of his retirement.

Recently a Division Bench of this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another Versus Darshan Singh Gill and another, 2011(4) SLR 731 by following the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Balram Gupta''s case (supra) and Shambhu Murari Sinha''s case (supra), has upheld the similar decision of the Tribunal where the order of declining the prayer for withdrawal of the notice, which was submitted much before the effective date of retirement, was set aside. In view of the above and the fact the similar petitions challenging the same order have been dismissed twice by this Court, the present writ petition is also dismissed.