GANPATLAL VYAS Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :-The petitioner was working on the post of peon in the office of Deputy Registrar, Neemuch under the Commercial Tax Department of the State Government. He gave a notice of three months to the respondents on 07.11.2006 (Annexure P-l) along with Form No. 28 under Rule-42 (l)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short 'Pension Rules') seeking his voluntary retirement w.e.f. 07.02.2007. Before expiry of the notice period the petitioner submitted an application on 02.12.2006 (Annexure P-3) seeking withdrawal of his application dated 07.11.2006 for voluntary retirement. However, on 07.02.2007 the fourth respondents communicated its decision dated 09.11.2006 (Annexure P-10) to the petitioner informing him that his prayer for voluntary retirement has been accepted. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he having applied for withdrawal of the application for voluntary retirement by giving reasons much prior to the effective date given in the notice for voluntary retirement his prayer for withdrawal of the application for voluntary retirement ought to have been considered favourably in view of Rule-42(2) of the Pension Rules. He submits that the action of the respondents in not allowing his application for withdrawal of application for voluntary retirement is illegal and is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India & another (AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2354), and the orders of this Court in the case of Jauhari Vs. Madhya Pradesh Laghu Udyog Nigam Maryadit, Bhopal (2004 (2) M.P.H.T. 533), Director General, Employees State Insurance Corporation & Another Vs. Puroshottam Malani (2007 (1) M.P.H.T. 173) and in Jaggannath Prasad Vs. M. P. State Electricity Board & others 2003 (2) M.P.H.T. 7 (NOC). In the circumstances a prayer has been made by the petitioner that the impugned order dated 09.11.2006 (Annexure P-10) which was communicated on 07.02.2007 be quashed and the petitioner be directed to be reinstated with the consequential benifits.

(3.) The respondents have filed reply and have stated that the petitioner's application dated 07.11.2006 giving notice of three months for voluntary retirement was allowed on 09.11.2006. His application dated 02.12.2006 for withdrawal of application for voluntary retirement was considered but it was not found fit to allow the same. In support copy of the note-sheet has been filed as Annexure R-l1. Thus, according to the respondents no case is made out to interfere into the impugned order and the action of the respondents.