Satbir Singh (Died) and Others vs The State of Haryana and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—Satbir Singh who was working as Constable, made a request to the Government on February 14, 1991 that he be allowed to voluntarily retire from service w.e.f. April 30, 1991. Before the stipulated date reached, he changed his mind and on April 10, 1991, he withdrew his request for voluntary retirement. Irrespective of that, the Government retired him with effect from April 30, 1991. A copy of the order has been produced as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by this action, Constable Satbir Singh has approached this Court through the present writ petition. Unfortunately, on May 23, 1992, he expired. Resultantly, his widow has been substituted as a petitioner.

The short question that arises in this case is could the State Government retire constable Satbir Singh w.e.f. April 30, 1991 in spite of the fact that he had withdrawn his request vide letter dated April 10, 1991.

The respondents support their action on two basis. Firstly, it is averred that the petitioner''s request was accepted on February 19, 1991 and thereafter, he was not entitled to withdraw it. Secondly, the respondents maintain that the request for voluntary retirement cannot be withdrawn without the approval of the competent authority. Reliance for this behalf has been placed on the provision in note 3 under Rule 5.32 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

Admittedly, constable Satbir Singh had sought retirement w.e.f. April 30, 1991. He could not have been retired from an earlier date. Before the actual date could reach, he withdrew his request on April 10, 1991. That being so, there was no request before the Government which could have been accepted. There was nothing in pursuance to which the petitioner could have been retired. The petitioner''s request for voluntary retirement was inchoate till April 30, 1991. He was entitled to withdraw it. He having withdrawn his request there was nothing for the Government to accept.

It is true that in pursuance to the request contained in the letter dated February 14, 1991, an order of acceptance was passed on February 19, 1991. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure R-I with the written statement. It also appears to have been delivered to Constable Satbir Singh. However, even according to his order, the retirement was to become effective on April 30, 1991. It having been withdrawn earlier, the action in retiring the official was illegal and cannot be sustained.

As for the plea that the petitioner could not have withdrawn his request for voluntary retirement, it may be mentioned that reference to note 3 below Rule 5.32 appears to be mistake. It appears that this rule was deleted from the Statue book many years back. However, a provision is contained in Clause (4) of Rule 5. 32-B Which provides as under:-

"(4) A Government employee, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the 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.

A perusal of the above provision shows that an employee cannot withdraw his request for retirement ". except with the specific approval of such authority ". The proviso further shows that the request for withdrawal has to be made before "the intended date of his retirement." In this case, the request had been admittedly made before the intended date of retirement. As for the approval by the competent authority, it deserves mention that no reason what-so-ever has been disclosed in the written statement to show as to why the request made by the official was declined. In accordance with the rule enunciated by their Lordships of the supreme Court in Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr, , the action of the authority in declining the request without assigning any reason, cannot be sustained.

There is another aspect of the matter. Constable Satbir Singh had admittedly expired on May 23, 1992. His widow deserves some relief. Mr. P.K. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner states that even the family pension etc. which is due to the widow has not been released till today. According to the learned counsel, no retiral benefits have been released in spite of the fact that the official had been retired w.e.f. April 30, 1991. Mr. Jaswant Singh states that retiral benefits were probably not released on account of the pendency of this petition. In my view, this is hardly any reason. There was no order of stay passed by this Court.

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The action of the respondents in retiring Constable Satbir Singh is set aside. It is declared that he will be deemed to have continued in service till his death on May 23, 1992. As a result, the petitioner (the widow of Constable Satbir Singh) shall be entitled to the payment of arrears of salary till that date and the grant of all retiral benefits like gratuity etc. and the payment of family pension. The needful shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, the payment is not made within the aforesaid period, she will be entitled to recover the amount with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accrual till the date of actual payment. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.