STATE OF M P Vs. DEVIPRASAD DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 1.3.2001, passed by the State Administrative Tribunal, Indore, in the original application filed by the respondent herein, whereby the Tribunal allowed the application of the respondent and permitted the respondent to continue in service. Facts material for deciding this petition are mentioned hereunder.

(2.) THE respondent sought permission of the petitioners for voluntary retirement on completion of 35 years' of his service. He accordingly submitted requisite form no. 28 along with his application, as prescribed under the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereafter referred to as 'the Rules'). On submission of his application together with necessary form, the same was accepted but was to come in operation after three months from the date of submission of the application by the respondent, i.e., 29.2.2000. Before this date, on second thoughts, the respondent sought permission to withdraw the said application and the form submitted by him for voluntary retirement. This application was submitted by him on 1.2.2000, i.e., before the date on which his retirement was to come into effect. The application submitted by the respondent for withdrawal of the resignation was rejected on 25.4.2000 by the petitioner. This rejection compelled the respondent to approach the Tribunal for grant of necessary reliefs.

(3.) WE have accordingly gone through the impugned order, heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record. We find no merit and substance in the petition. By an elaborate and detailed order, the learned Tribunal has held that the respondent employee was justified in withdrawing his letter of voluntary retirement as the same was submitted by him before it had come into operation. The legal position on this issue is also too well settled. This position has further been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the subsequent judgments reported in 2000(3) SLJ 367 (Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India and another) and 2001 (2) SLJ 195 (Union of India v. Wing Commandar T. Parthsarthi). In both the cases, it has been held by the Supreme Court that if an application has been moved by an employee for withdrawal of voluntary retirement before the effective date, then the same should be accepted. In view of the discussion held above, we find that there is no merit and substance in the petition. It is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.