Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1354 (MP)

Chintamani Soni v. State of M. P.

2013-11-12

RAJENDRA MENON

body2013
JUDGMENT : Rajendra Menon, J. 1. Challenging the order passed by the respondents accepting the voluntary retirement of the petitioner and retiring him on such acceptance, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner had originally filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act in the year 1999 and after winding up of the tribunal, the application stands transferred to this Court and was registered as writ petition. 2. Records indicate that applicant's date of birth is 8.4.1941, he was appointed as a Patwari by the Collector Shahdol on 21.11.1961. Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30th of April, 2001 but according to the petitioner much before he could attain the age of superannuation, in the year 1997, he was not keeping good health, as a result on 22.7.1997 vide Annexure-A1, he moved an application for granting him an attachment in Tehsil Office and not compelling him to work as a Patwari, this request was again made vide Annexure-A2 dated 13.10.1997, which was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer Sohagpur District-Shahdol. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer alloted the work of the petitioner to one Shri Jawaharlal Patel vide order Annexure-A3 and directed the petitioner to produce the medical certificate to evaluate his request. In pursuance to the same, the petitioner submitted Annexure-A4 to the Sub Divisional Officer and it was the case of the petitioner that as the Medical Officer did not issue him any medical certificate, he approached the Sub Divisional Officer and the Sub Divisional Office vide Annexure-A5 dated 13.11.1997 requested the Chief Medical Officer to examine the petitioner and submit a report. It is said that the Medical Board examined the petitioner and submitted a report on 8.12.1997 vide Annexure-A6, whereby petitioner was declared as medically unfit to perform the duties. Based on the same, the petitioner has submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement and the same was accepted and the petitioner was allowed to retire voluntarily. 4. It is seen that the Medical Board also advised the petitioner to undergo Cataract Operation. When the petitioner underwent the Cataract Operation and after declared fit by the Medical Board on 4.3.1997, the petitioner has submitted an application Annexure-A10 requesting for joining his duties and as the petitioner was voluntarily retired from duties and was not permitted to join duties, these proceedings were initiated by the petitioner. When the petitioner underwent the Cataract Operation and after declared fit by the Medical Board on 4.3.1997, the petitioner has submitted an application Annexure-A10 requesting for joining his duties and as the petitioner was voluntarily retired from duties and was not permitted to join duties, these proceedings were initiated by the petitioner. It is case of the petitioner that the petitioner has not submitted any application for voluntary retirement, he has only submitted an application for grant of alternate work due to his ill health and as he has been retired without any reason, this writ petition has been filed. 5. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General refuted the aforesaid and invited our attention to Annexure-R1 an application submitted by the petitioner along with the medical certificate. Shri Rahul Jain pointed out that in the subject matter of the application, the petitioner has indicated that because of ill health, he be granted voluntary retirement as per pension rules, thereafter, in Para-2 of the application, he has again prayed for voluntary retirement due to ill health. It is argued that the application Annexure-R1 for voluntary retirement along with pension rules has been accepted and he has been granted voluntary retirement and, there is no provision for withdrawal of the voluntary retirement application after it's acceptance. It is argued by Shri Rahul Jain that an application seeking voluntary retirement or resignation once accepted cannot be withdrawn. 6. The law only permits withdrawal of the application before it's acceptance. In the present case, it is argued by Shri Rahul Jain that the application for withdrawal of voluntary retirement/resignation is submitted after it's acceptance and in view of the aforesaid, he places reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy 2001 (1) SCC 158 and in the case of the Secretary Technical Education U.P. v. Lalit Mohan Upadhyay & Anr. 2007 (4) SCC 492 . Accordingly Shri Rahul Jain submits that once the application for voluntary retirement/resignation is accepted, there is no provision for withdrawal of the same and, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2007 (4) SCC 492 . Accordingly Shri Rahul Jain submits that once the application for voluntary retirement/resignation is accepted, there is no provision for withdrawal of the same and, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. From the records, it is clear that the petitioner was working as a Patwari, he suffered certain ailments and, therefore, initially sought for grant of work in Tehsil Office and, thereafter, he was medically examined by the Medical Board as is evident from Annexure-A6 and in the report submitted by the Medical Board, it is opined that he is unfit to continue in Government 8. Service, he was also advised for the operation of Cataract, he also submitted Annexure-R1 dated 13.10.1997 and in the subject matter of the application Annexure-R1, he has clearly mentioned "Asmarthta Seva Nivrat Awam Pension" i.e. that the subject is with regard to his retirement and pension. Thereafter, in Para-2 of the application Annexure-R1, he has clearly stated that since last few years, petitioner is unable to see with his eye, as he underwent the operation for Cataract and he has categorically says that he may be granted voluntary retirement from government service as per Pension Rules and as the claims have not been settled, it is indicated that his application be treated as notice under the rule. 9. In pursuance to the application submitted by the petitioner, the competent authority passed an order vide Annexure-A9 on 31.1.1998 and based on his notice given on 13.10.1997, he was retired w.e.f. 13.1.1998. The notice dated 13.10.1997 referred to in this order Annexure-A9 is the application Annexure-R1 submitted by the petitioner on 13.10.1997. It is, therefore, clear that on 31.1.1998, petitioner's request for retirement made vide Annexure-R1 was accepted and he was retired from the forenoon of 13.1.1998. The notice dated 13.10.1997 referred to in this order Annexure-A9 is the application Annexure-R1 submitted by the petitioner on 13.10.1997. It is, therefore, clear that on 31.1.1998, petitioner's request for retirement made vide Annexure-R1 was accepted and he was retired from the forenoon of 13.1.1998. The law with regard to retirement is well settled in the case of Secretary Technical Education (Supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court after discussing the law on the subject that the application to withdraw the resignation/retirement offer is available to employee only till acceptance of the same and it is held that once the offer is accepted, there is no provision for withdrawal of the resignation/retirement, same is the legal position indicated by the Supreme Court in the case of Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy (Supra) relied upon by Shri Rahul Jain. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it is clear that the request made by the petitioner seeking withdrawal of the retirement/resignation was submitted much after the request was accepted and he was retired vide order Annexure-A9 and as the withdrawal of the application after it's acceptance was not permissible, the same was rejected. In view of the same, no case is made out for interference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.