Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2199 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Ganpat Dan

2005-08-22

MANAK MOHTA

body2005
Judgment ..We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.02.2005. 2. The undisputed facts are that the respondent while working as Forester in the office of Deputy Chief Conservator of Forests, Pali, submitted an application dated 13.03.2001 seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.05.2001. He withdrew the same. It was stated that because of ailment, he was mentally disturbed, as such he thought it proper to seek voluntary retirement, but later on he decided to continue in service. The prayer to withdraw the letter dated 13.03.2001 was rejected on the ground that the application for the voluntary retirement was accepted on the very next day i.e., on 14.03.2001. A letter in that regard was issued to the respondent on 12.04.2001. The respondent challenged the said order dated 12.04.2001 by way of a writ petition. The learned Single Judge has examined the issue in great depth and detail. On appreciation of the material on record, he arrived at the conclusion that in fact a decision to accept the prayer for voluntary retirement was taken after 20.03.2001. If such a decision was taken on the very next day i.e., 14.03.2001 then there was no reason to convey the same as late as by communication dated 12.04.2001. The learned Judge also examined the legal position. In accordance with the Rule 244, the respondent was entitled to withdraw the notice seeking voluntary retirement. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is supported by the various decisions of the Supreme Court. The leading case in this respect is Union of India vs. Satish Chandra, reported in AIR 1978 SC 649, wherein, it is held that the incumbent before arrival of the prospective date on which the resignation was intended to be effective could withdraw the same. 3. Having considered the entire matter, the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the respondent could have withdrawn the notice for voluntary retirement before the effective date of voluntary retirement is in consonance of the established position of law. Thus, no interference is warranted by this Court. 4. The special appeal stands dismissed.