Swaroop Singh Chouhan vs State of Rajasthan and Others

V.S. Kokje, J.—With the consent of the parties the case was finally heard. The petitioner was a member of Police Force of the State. The petitioner sought voluntary retirement on 25.12.1989. He also sent an application by registered post on 26.12.1989. The communications dated 25th Dec. 1989 & 26th Dec. 1989 do not state specific date w.e.f. which the retirement was sought which shows that the communication was to seek voluntary retirement after 90 days. On 5.1.1990 this request was accepted and it was directed that the petitioner would retire w.e.f. 6.4.1990. On 27.2.1990 the petitioner submitted an application for withdrawing his proposal to voluntarily retire This was rejected by the District Superintendent of Police, Pali on 7th March 1990. An application was then made to A.I.G. on 10.3.1990 and another communication was sent to the District Superintendent of Police on 25th March 1990 seeking withdrawal of the proposal of voluntary retirement. A communication was then addressed to his execllency to the Governer on 6.4.1990. On 21.9.1992 the District Superintendent of Police, Pali reiterated that the request of the petitioner was not acceptable as under the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules 242(1) there was no provision for taking back any employee after his notice of resignation is accepted. An appeal was filed which was rejected as there was no provision for appeals. Hence the petitioner filed this petition.

In reply it is contended that once the proposal of voluntary retirement is accepted it could not be withdrawn.

The case is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Bal Ram Gupta v. Union of India and Anr. 1987 suppl S.C.C. 225, It has been categorically laid-down in that case that when the retirement, form the government service was to take effect at a subsequent date prospectively and that withdrawal was required before that date the appellant had locus pcesitentiae. The dissolution of the contract of employment would be brought about only on the date indicated. Upto that date the appellant was and is a Government employee. There is no unilateral termination of the same prior thereto. He would be at liberty and entitled to, independently without any rules as a Government servant withdraw his notice for voluntary retirement.

As the case is squarely covered by the decision of Bal Ram Gupta''s case (supra).

The petition is allowed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed outed that Annex. R/14 to the return petitioner has been ordered to be taken on duty. If the order has not been taken back it is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the benefits of service as if he had continued in service even after the expiry of the period of his notice for voluntary retirement.

There shall be no order as to costs.