SOKHANDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was holding the post of Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Defence. On 24thApril, 1998 he applied for seeking voluntary retirement under Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 w.e.f. 16th May, 1998 (F/N). The request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 16th May, 1998 was accepted by the Government on 8th May, 1998. On 12th May, 1998 the Government announced its decision to enhance the retirement age of Government servants from fifty eight years to sixty years. On the same day the petitioner applied seeking permission to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement. The request of the petitioner for permission to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement was rejected on 16th May, 1998. The petitioner challenged the said rejection through an application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal on 19th May, 1998. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment dated 16th July, 1998 dismissed the application of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the said decision of the Tribunal.

(2.) . The short point for consideration in the present case is the validity of the decision of the Government rejecting the request of the petitioner to permit him to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Balram Gupta v.Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2354. In the said case, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the validity of the decision of the Government in refusing the request for permission to withdraw notice of voluntary retirement. The only ground given by the petitioner in the said case for seeking permission to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement was "on account of persistent and personal requests from the staff members, the appellant had changed his mind and consequently had by his letter dated 31st January, 1981 withdrawn his notice of voluntary retirement." The request for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement was rejected by the Government and the officer was relieved from his post. The petitioner challenged the decision of the Government. The Supreme Court observed: "Approval, however, is not ipse dixit of the Approving Authority. The Approving Authority who has the statutory authority must act reasonably and rationally. The only reason put forward here is that the appellant had not indicated his reasons for withdrawal. This, in our opinion, sufficiently indicated that he was prevailed upon by his friends and the appellant had a second look at the matter. This is not an unreasonable reason. The guidelines for purposes of arriving at a decision in such matters are:

(3.) . The Supreme Court was clearly of the view that ordinarily permission should not be granted unless the officer concerned is in a position to show that there has been a material change in the circumstances in consideration of which the notice was originally given. On the facts of the case, the Court found that there was no valid reason for withholding permission by the respondents.