P K AGRAWAL vs M/o Finance on 15 October 2026

O R D E R

By Smt. Mallika Arya, AM.-

The present original application has been directed against the order dated 24.02.2015 (Annexure A-1) by which the request of the applicant for voluntary retirement has been accepted by the respondent no. 3 .

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant submitted an application dated 27.10.2014 (Annexure A-2) under Rule 48(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.01.2015. The applicant also filed another application dated 20.11.2014 seeking his voluntary retirement w.e.f. 28.02.2015 (Annexure A-3). However, before acceptance of his request, the applicant preferred an application dated 12.01.2015 (Annexure A-4) to withdraw his earlier applications for voluntary retirement under Rule 48 (2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that despite the fact that the applicant has filed his application to withdraw his earlier applications for voluntary retirement prior to the effective date of his retirement, the respondent no. 3 has issued order dated 24.02.2015 for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 28.02.2015 (Annexure A-1). The

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the action of the respondent no. 3 is illegal, unjustified and against the rules.

3. The respondents have filed their reply refuting the claim of the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that upon accepting voluntary retirement, the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 do not provide any provisions that mandate the appointing authority to consider or accept a subsequent cancellation request of voluntary retirement. Referring to Rule 48(2) of the Pension Rules , the learned counsel for the respondents has stated that a government servant, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his election subsequently except with the specific approval of such authority. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that though the applicant made a request to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement in time but as per Rule 48(2), he is precluded from withdrawing the application subsequently except with the specific approval of the competent authority. Since the competent authority has rejected the application for withdrawal, therefore, he is not entitled for relief and prayed to dismiss the OA.

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

4. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicant has emphasized that the voluntary retirement notice even if gets accepted can be withdrawn within the time fixed before the date of retirement is reached. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balram Gupta vs. Union of India and another, 1987 (Supp) SCC 228, J.N. Srivastava vs. Union of India and another, (1998) 9 SCC 559 and Union of India and another vs. Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy, (2001) 1 SCC 158. The learned counsel for the applicant has also cited the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of M.P. in the case of Anand Swaroop Singh vs. Union of India & others, 2012 SCC OnLine MP 8415 and has prayed that the relief may be granted to the applicant.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.

6. It is a settled law that an employee can withdraw his/her application for voluntary retirement before the effective date and the effective date would necessarily be the date on which the retirement

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

takes effect. In the case of Anand Swaroop Singh Vs. UOI & Ors (Supra), the Hon’ble High Court of M.P has held as under: “The only grievance of the petitioner is that he made an application for voluntary retirement on 15th August, 2011, which application was pending consideration before the respondents when he applied for grant of leave for the purposes of treatment of his ailing wife, which was granted and after availing of leave he joined the duties. However, all of a sudden, the petitioner was served with an order of voluntary retirement issued on 09.11.2011. On receipt of the said order, the petitioner made an application for cancellation of the same, virtually demanding withdrawal of his notice of voluntary retirement on 12.11.2011. Though the voluntary retirement was to be given effect on 15.11.2011 and such a notice was already withdrawn much before the aforesaid date, yet the petitioner was not allowed to join back the duties, therefore, he made representation on 07.12.2011 and has come to this Court thereafter challenging the action of the respondents in voluntary retiring the petitioner.

xxx

xxx

xxx

5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and considered the law laid-down by the Apex Court. It is settled position of law that the voluntary retirement, if was not given effect to, could have been withdrawn as was demanded by the employee concerned. If a prayer is made much before the date on which the notice of voluntary retirement was to be given effect to, the same was to be considered and the order accepting the voluntary retirement notice could have been recalled if the effective date had not reached. In view of this position of law, it was not proper on the part of the respondents to insist that since they had passed the order of voluntary retirement of the petitioner, he cannot be allowed to withdraw the notice of voluntary retirement…..”

7. In the present case also, the applicant had made an application on 12.01.2015 for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement prior to 28.02.2015, i.e. the effective date on

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

which the notice period came to an end. The fact regarding receipt of the application for withdrawal has also been accepted by the respondents in their reply and they have contended that it was received in their office before 28.02.2015. Thus, even though the request of the applicant for voluntary retirement had been accepted, the applicant was well within his right to withdraw in the light of the judgment cited above and the law laid down in the cases of Balram Gupta (supra) and J.N. Shrivastava (supra).

8. In view of the aforesaid, this Original Application No. 175/2015 is allowed. The order dated 24.02.2015 (Annexure A-1) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the intervening period as ‘on duty’ and allow all consequential benefits including post retiral benefits.

9. All associated Misc. Applications stand disposed off.

10. No order as to costs.

(Smt. Mallika Arya)

(Rajinder Singh Dogra) Administrative Member

Judicial Member Anand…

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY