Chaturbhuj Dixit vs State of U.P. and Others

Sabhajeet Yadav, J.—Heard Teamed Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

It is stated that vide application dated 26.3.2003 while working on the post of Account Clerk in District Auraiya, the petitioner has sought voluntary retirement from service. On 10.6.2003 District Development Officer had accepted the aforesaid application of petitioner w.e.f. 30.6.2003. Thereafter the petitioner has moved an application on 16.3.2005 before the competent authority for withdrawing his aforesaid application but it appears that vide order dated 8.9.2006 passed by District Magistrate, Auraiya the petitioner has been, retired from service w.e.f. 30,6.2003 that is with retrospective effect.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that firstly when the petitioner has moved his application for voluntary retirement he did not complete the requisite service to seek voluntary retirement, which requires completion of 20 years service and attaining 45 years of age. At that time the petitioner did neither complete 20 years service nor could attain the age of 45 years, accordingly an objection was raised against the aforesaid application of petitioner that the same cannot be accepted. But subsequently vide order dated 8.9.2006 without any rhyme or reason and without justification the aforesaid application has been accepted with retrospective effect w.e.f. 30.6.2003.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that before his application for voluntary retirement was accepted by the District Magistrate on 8.9.2006, he has already moved application for withdrawing his aforesaid application on 16.3.2005, therefore, his request for voluntary retirement could not be accepted by the District Magistrate as before acceptance, he has already withdrawn his said application.

The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct and has to be accepted. The order passed by District Magistrate on 8.9.2006 is contrary to law and cannot be sustained. Accordingly the same is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be treated to be reinstated in service. According to the submission of learned Counsel, the petitioner would attain his age of superannuation in the year 2020, therefore, District Magistrate, Auraiya is directed to pass fresh order about the benefit of arrears of salary to be given to the petitioner during the period for which he was out of service on account of impugned order passed against him, without his fault. Such order shall be passed by District Magistrate within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order passed by this Court before him.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition succeeds and allowed.