BHIM SINGH JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Specialist Doctor in Grade I of the Central Health Services. At the relevant time he was holding the post of Professor of Ophthalmology, Maulana Azad Medical College under Delhi Administration. He was born on 1st May, 1923. He joined the service of the Central Government on 26.8.1957. It appears that he was involved in litigation with the Central Government since 1967 for various claims. He. filed a Write Petition, being No. 896 of 1971, which was decided by this Court on 17.3.1980. The petitioner claims that under the said judgment he is entitled to the arrears of ever Rs. 30,000. A few months prior to the said decision the petitioner was ordered to be transferred to Pondicherry. The petitioner filled Civil Writ Petition No. K672 of 1979 challenging the transfer. The writ petition was admitted and the transfer order was stayed.

(2.) On 1.3.1980 the petitioner, by a writt communication, requsted for voluntary retirement with effect from 30 September, 1980. His due date of retirement, however, was 30.4.1981. In his letter seeking premature retirement the petitioner stated : "Personal and family reasons compel me to seek premature retirement on 30th of September, 1980." On 5.5.1980, that is, during the pendency of the statutory notice period of three months the Central Government acceded to his request for voluntary retirement with effect from 30th September, 1980 under F.R. 56(k). On 10.7.1980 the petioner wrote a letter to the Secretary, Government of India, Department of Health informing that he had decided to withdraw the notice of premature retirement. In the said letter the petitioner complained that in spite of the High Court's order the arrears of over Rs. 30,000.00 were not paid to him. He also noted in the letter that the Government has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court. He has also stated the reasons for withdrawing the notice for voluntary retirement. He writes: "I had sought pre-mature retirement to avoid the agony of prolonged litigation which has been forced on me since 1967. No useful purpose shall, however, be served by my premature retirement under the circumstances. I have therefore decided to withdraw the notice of pre-mature retirement. Kindly treat my request for premature retirement as cancelled and I will retire normally as on 31.4.81." No reply was sent to this letter by the respondents to the petitioner. It is however, claimed in the counter-affidavit of the Union of India that they had refused permission to the petitioner to withdraw his notice and the same was communicated to the Delhi Administration.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents to retire him on 30th Sptember, 1980. Shri P. P. Rao, counsel for the petitioner submits that Fundamental Rule 56 (k) docs not impose any prohibition on the petitioner to withdraw his notice for premature retirement. He also contends that the Government has no power, under any provisions of law, to refuse withdrawal of the notice of retirement by Government servant. He has also challenged the action of retirement on the grounds of mala fides of the respondents. Counsel for the respondents opposes these submissions. He argues that the petitioner sought the withdrawal of the notice after the notice was accepted by the Government. He further contends that the Government has a right to withheld the permission to withdraw the notice.