Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 12 (RAJ)

Pratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2013-01-03

GOVIND MATHUR

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - By submitting an application dated 14.3.2000 the petitioner, a Driver working in the office of the Assistant Engineer, Mahi Project Dam Site, sought permission to have voluntary retirement from service w. e. f. 31.3.2000. Acting upon the application the Chief Engineer, Mahi Project, Banswara vide order dated 18.3.2000 granted approval for voluntary retirement of the petitioner w. e. f. 31.3.2000. The petitioner, however, on 31.3.2000 withdrew the application seeking voluntary retirement. The respondents in spite of withdrawal of the application for voluntary retirement, retired the petitioner from service, thus, this petition for writ is preferred. 2. The argument advanced by counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner before coming into effect of the retirement withdrew the application, therefore, the competent authority has erroneously retired him from service. It is also stated that a writ petition of similar nature ( SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4673/2000, Gulab Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ) has already been accepted by this Court and as such this petition for writ deserves to be accepted in light of the judgment dated 29.7.2002 passed in the case of Gulab Singh (supra). 3. While contesting the petition, it is submitted by counsel for the respondents that the cause being agitated at belated stage is not required to be examined. It is asserted that the petitioner came to be retired from service on 31.3.2000 and he availed all post retiral benefits without any objection. He did not choose to raise any objection regarding retirement for good three years. At the first instance a notice for demand of justice was received at his instance through his counsel in the month of February, 2003 and the writ petition thereafter was filed in the month of March, 2003 i. e. after a lapse of three years from the date of retirement, without having sufficient explanation for such delay. 4. On merits, it is submitted that in the case of Gulab Singh (supra) the Court did not examine scope of Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1996") which prescribes to have voluntary retirement on completion of 15 years of qualifying service. 4. On merits, it is submitted that in the case of Gulab Singh (supra) the Court did not examine scope of Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1996") which prescribes to have voluntary retirement on completion of 15 years of qualifying service. According to Rule 50 aforesaid 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 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. In the instant matter the application was not submitted before the intended date, but on intended date only. 5. Heard counsel for the parties. 6. The factual position of the case stated in preceding paras is not at all in dispute. The petitioner came to be retired from service on 31.3.2000 and at the first instance he questioned the same by submitting a notice for demand of justice in the month of February, 2003 and then by way of this writ petition that was filed on 27.3.2003. No satisfactory reason is given by the petitioner for causing such inordinate delay. During the course of arguments it is submitted that the petitioner choose to challenge the order of retirement after disposal of a similar petition for writ i. e. of Gulab Singh (supra) on 29.7.2002. The writ petition aforesaid was also decided on 29.7.2002 but the petitioner further waited for good seven months to agitate his cause. No satisfactory reason for causing this delay too is given. I am of considered opinion that the delay caused is fatal, specially looking to the circumstances that he availed all his pensionary rights and benefits in the year 2000 itself without raising any finger. The petition for writ, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. 7. Though I have arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner for writ suffers from fatal delay and latches, I deem it appropriate to mention that a right to avail voluntary retirement from service accrued to the petitioner as per Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996. The petition for writ, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. 7. Though I have arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner for writ suffers from fatal delay and latches, I deem it appropriate to mention that a right to avail voluntary retirement from service accrued to the petitioner as per Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996. Under sub-rule(4) of Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 a Government servant who has elected to retire voluntarily may withdraw his notice in exceptional circumstances with specific approval of the competent authority. A request for such withdrawal is required to be made before the intended date of retirement. The intended date in the instant matter was 31.3.2000 and the application for withdrawal was also given on the same day and not before that. The requirement of Rule 50(4) of the Rules of 1996 is that such an application is required to be submitted before the intended date of retirement. The petitioner being failed to submit such application upto zero hours of 31.3.2000 was not entitled to withdraw his earlier request subsequent thereto. In the case of Gulab Singh (supra) the Court has not taken into consideration the provision aforesaid. As a matter of fact the writ petition preferred by Shri Gulab Singh was accepted by relying upon certain judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court pertaining to the provisions other than to the Rules of 1996. It is also pertinent to note that the facts considered in the case of Gulab Singh are quite different. In the case aforesaid the application seeking voluntary retirement was submitted on 11.9.2000 to have voluntary retirement from service w. e. f. 30.11.2000. The application aforesaid was sought to be withdrawn on 16.9.2000 but the employer without taking into consideration the application dated 16.9.2000 retired the employee concerned w. e. f. 30.11.2000. The position in the instant matter is quite different. In the case in hand the application seeking withdrawal of the request for voluntary retirement was filed on the intended date of retirement and not before it as required under Rule 50(4) of the Rules of 1996. 8. The writ petition, therefore, is having no merit. The same, therefore, is dismissed with no order to costs.Petition dismissed. *******