KAMTA PRASAD PANDEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 10/11/2006 passed in MCC No. 2573/2005 against the order dated 29/10/2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 22346/2003, the present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 2 of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. Short facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as a Warden in Central Jail on 13/05/1976 at Rewa. On 14/07/1998, the appellant submitted an application for voluntary retirement on a simple paper and requested to relieve him on the same day i.e. 14/07/1998. The application was not in the prescribed Form No. 28 and the appellant did not deposit advance salary of 3 months, as required under Rule 42(1)(A) of Pension Rules, therefore, Superintendent wrote a letter on 14/10/1998 (Annexure A/2) to the appellant that his application could not be accepted. On 05/04/2002, the appellant submitted a conditional application for voluntary retirement that if his son could be considered for employment then only his application for voluntary retirement should be acted upon and accepted. In consequence, the Superintendent, Central Jail, had issued letter dated 23/05/2002 (Annexure A/4) warning the petitioner that conditional application for voluntary retirement could not be maintained. Despite such letter, the respondent passed an order dated 26/06/2002 and voluntarily retired the petitioner with effect from 05/07/2002, which was challenged in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has not found any illegality in the order of voluntary retirement, hence, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 29/10/2005. Appellant has also filed an application for review/recalling of the aforesaid impugned order, which was also dismissed on 10/11/2006.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent submitted in its reply that the petitioner submitted his application for voluntary retirement in the prescribed form which was accepted by the Superintendent. His retirement dues have been paid and pension fixed. The respondent also submitted that there is no provision to withdraw the said order.

(3.) THE respondent filed return stating that the order dated 26/06/2002 was passed on basis of the application submitted by the petitioner on 05/04/2002 and the petitioner was directed to voluntarily retire from service after the expiry of three months with effect from 05/07/2002 and hence the order was in accordance with the provisions of law and keeping with Rule 42(1)(A) of the Pension Rules, 1976. The petitioner was deliberately filing applications and then withdrawing them on more than one occasion and had been warned by the department to desist from doing so. It was also not possible to grant appointment to his son in his place as sated in the application.