Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 839 (RAJ)

Madan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2011-04-28

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 07.02.1995, Annex.-3, whereby, application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement from service was accepted, so also, order dated 18.03.2000, Annex.-12 passed by the revisional authority whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was rejected. 2. As per brief facts of the case, the petitioner was substantively appointed in the Municipal Board on the post of Sub Nakedar on 08.01.1975. Later on, the petitioner/was illegally reverted to the post of Naka-Guard on 24.03.1983. On 01.11.1994, when the petitioner was working on the post of Naka-Guard, due to bad mental condition, the petitioner made an application to accept his retirement from service with effect from 07.02.1995. 3. In para 5 of the writ petition, it is specifically pleaded by the petitioner that before 07.02.1995, the day on which the petitioner was to be given retirement as per his application for voluntary retirement, the petitioner withdrew that application for voluntary retirement by filing application on 18.01.1995. However, the application filed by the petitioner on 18.01.1995 was not given any heed and order was passed on 07.02.1995 by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Sangaria whereby application for voluntary retirement under Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules was accepted. After acceptance of voluntary retirement application, so many representations were filed by the petition, in which, it was specifically pleaded that due to bad mental condition the application for voluntary retirement was filed and the same was withdrawn on 18.01.1995; but, no reply whatsoever was given to the petitioner and, at last, a revision petition was filed by the petitioner and that too was dismissed vide Annex.-12 dated 18.03.2000. 4. After rejection of the revision petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. 4. After rejection of the revision petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that before acceptance of the voluntary retirement application there is liberty to the employee so seeking voluntary retirement to withdraw the application filed by him for voluntary retirement and only pre-condition is that such withdrawal of the application for voluntary retirement must be prior to acceptance of the prayer for voluntary retirement, in this case, the application for withdrawal of the application filed for voluntary retirement was made on 18.01.1995 but ignoring the said fact, the respondents accepted the prayer of the petitioner for voluntary retirement vide order dated 07.02.1995, therefore, the order dated 07.02.1995 is illegal. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balram Guptas case reported in (1987) Suppl. SCC 228. Therefore, it is prayed that the order of acceptance of voluntary retirement as well as order passed in the revision may be quashed and set aside and petitioner may be reinstated in service. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondents may be directed to treat the petitioner in service till date of superannuation because at the time of filing this writ petition the petitioner was 51 years of age. 7. In this writ petition, reply has been filed by the respondents and in para 2 and 5 of the reply the respondents have accepted the fact that application for withdrawal of voluntary retirement application was filed by the petitioner on 18.01.1995; meaning thereby, the facts are not in dispute in this case. 8. However, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Board contends that petitioner is not entitled to any relief because the post of Nakaguard has already been abolished in the year 1998 after accepting the voluntary retirement application of the petitioner. So also, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief at this belated stage. 9. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused Rule 244(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules which reads as under: 244 (1). So also, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief at this belated stage. 9. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused Rule 244(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules which reads as under: 244 (1). Optional Retirement on completion of 20 years qualifying service.-(a) A Government servant may, after giving at least 3 months' previous notice in writing to the Appointing Authority, retire from service on the date on which he completes 20 years of qualifying service or attains the age of 45 years whichever is earlier or any date thereafter to be specified in the notice : (f) A Government servant may, with the approval of the Appointing Authority, withdraw the notice given under clause (1) of this sub-rule provided the request for such withdrawal is made before the expiry of the notice." 10. In this case, according to facts, the petitioner was substantively working on the post of Nakaguard and initially he was appointed on 08.01.1975. The application for voluntary retirement was accepted with effect from 07.02.1995. The day on which the voluntary retirement application was filed, the petitioner had completed 20 years service; but, it is also one of the important aspects of the matter that prior to acceptance of the prayer for voluntary retirement the petitioner had withdrawn the prayer by way of filing application on 18.01.1995. In this view of the matter, as per verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balram Gupta's case which is subsequently followed in various judgments of this Court, I am of the opinion that acceptance of the voluntary retirement application by the respondents inspite of withdrawal of the said application by filing application on 18.01.1995 which is totally illegal. 11. Therefore, while following the adjudication made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balram Guptas case (supra), the order of acceptance of voluntary retirement dated 07.02.1995 and order Annex.-12 dated 18.03.2000 are hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to treat the petitioner in service till his date of superannuation and grant him all retrial benefits and other benefits available under the Service Rules. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner will be entitled to 50% back-wages up to the date of superannuation. The retrial benefits of the petitioner shall be finalised within three months from the date of receiving certified copy of this order.Petition allowed. *******