HARGOVANBHAI M. PATEL Vs. GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has by this petition challenged the action of respondent No. 1 -University as illegal and arbitrary in not permitting him to withdraw his notice for voluntary retirement, despite the fact that the withdrawal was before the effective date of retirement and before the acceptance of notice for voluntary retirement. Petitioner, an original employee in the Department of Agriculture, State of Bombay was allocated to the Agriculture Department of State of Gujarat on bifurcation of the Bombay State. The petitioner was thereafter promoted in due course and was holding the post of Asst. Research Scientist on 20 -3 -87. On 20 -3 -87, having completed qualified service for voluntary retirement, the petitioner served the notice dated 20 -3 -87 to the respondent No. 2 expressing his desire for voluntary retirement with effect from 1 -6 -87 on treating the said letter as three months' notice for voluntary retirement. Before 1 -6 -87, the petitioner by his letter dated 13 -5 -87 informed the respondent No. 2 that his letter of 20th March 1987, a notice of voluntary retirement, be allowed to be withdrawn and treated as cancelled. At the relevant time, the petitioner was already in service and was discharging his duties on the concerned post. Said letter of withdrawal dated 13 -5 -87 was received by the respondent No. 2 on 15 -5 -87. Despite this fact, the notice for voluntary retirement was accepted and the said acceptance was intimated to the petitioner by the letter dated 19 -5 -87 permitting him to retire with effect from 1 -6 -87.

(2.) Petitioner has withdrawn the notice for voluntary retirement dated 20 -3 -87 by his letter of 13 -5 -87 which was received by the respondent No. 2 on 15 -5 -87 before the decision accepting his notice for voluntary retirement was taken on 19 -5 -87. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the facts and the contentions raised in the case of Dr. U.S. Shah v. Gujarat Agricultural University, Banaskantha [29(2) GLR 1187]. In that judgment this Court (Coram: A.P. Ravani, J.) has relied on the following observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Bab -am Gupta v. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 2354):

(3.) The Supreme Court has further observed that "In the modern and uncertain age, it is very difficult to arrange one's future with any amount of certainty, a certain amount of flexibility is required, and if such flexibility does not jeopardize Government or administration, administration should be graceful enough to respond and acknowledge the flexibility of the human mind and attitude and allow the appellant to withdraw his letter of retirement." Thus, the legal position is settled one. In the instant case, the petitioner in his letter of withdrawal has specifically mentioned that his notice for voluntary retirement be cancelled as the department is not co -operating for determination of his terminal benefits. This being the reason, he requested the department to cancel his notice for voluntary retirement. On the relevant day, the petitioner was in service and was to continue in service upto 1 -6 -87. Only reason for not approving the withdrawal for the cancellation of the notice for voluntary retirement made out by the respondent is that the proceedings for recovery were pending against the petitioner and thereupon the petitioner has sought for voluntary retirement. They have further stated that the petitioner may prefer and appeal to the Vice -Chancellor for not approving his letter for cancellation of notice for voluntary retirement and the Vice -Chancellor may consider the same in accordance with the rules. It is nowhere alleged nor any attempt is made out to show that any inconvenience or administrative difficulties would arise in case cancellation of notice is approved. Thus in the instant case, even if the cancellation of notice for voluntary retirement is approved, no inconvenience worth the name was likely to cause. Thus, there was no reason for the respondent - authorities not to allow the cancellation of the notice for voluntary retirement dated 20 -3 -87. It is not shown by the respondent that there is any administraive change because of the notice given by the petitioner for voluntary retirement and they are not able to restore the status quo ante which is changed because of the notice given by the petitioner. It will also be pertinent to note that the petitioner is reaching the age of superannuation on 30 -11 -91. Therefore, there were hardly about four years' service left for him to go for service at the relevant time and only a month or so from today to discharge his duties. Under the circumstances, the petitioner was justified in asking the respondent to cancel his notice for voluntary retirement. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents were justified in refusing or not accepting his letter cancelling the notice for voluntary retirement. (ISS) Rule made absolute.