GULAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 14. 12. 2000 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order Annex. 5 dt. 22. 11. 2000 by which on the application of the petitioner, the petitioner was voluntarily retired with effect from 30. 11. 2000, be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows- THE petitioner was initially appointed on 29. 11. 1973 on the post of Survey Luskar in the Department of Irrigation. On account of abolition of the post of Survey Luskar, the petitioner was absorbed in the Irrigation Department in the year 1975 on the post of Class IV employee. THEreafter, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Lower Division Clerk on 3. 11. 1988. THEreafter, the petitioner was transferred from Irrigation Department to the Department of Finance on 8. 4. 1993. THEreafter, an application dated 11. 9. 2000 was submitted by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 30. 11. 2000. A copy of the said application dated 11. 9. 2000 is marked as Annex. P/1. THE said application of the petitioner was forwarded by the respondent no. 2 Assistant Director, State Insurance and General Provident Fund Department, Banswara to the respondent no. 2 Director, State Insurance and General Provident Fund Department, Collectorate, Jaipur vide letter dated 14. 9. 2000, a copy of which is marked as Annex. P/2. THE further case of the petitioner is that he submitted another application dated 16. 9. 2000 to the respondent no. 2 Director for withdrawal and cancellation of his earlier application dated 11. 9. 2000 (Annex. P/1) seeking voluntary retirement w. e. f. 30. 11. 2000. A copy of the said application dated 16. 9. 2000 is marked as Annex. P/3. Apart from this, the petitioner also submitted a copy of the application dated 16. 9. 2000 (Annex. P/3) for withdrawal and cancellation of his earlier application dated 11. 9. 2000 (Annex. P/1) seeking voluntary retirement w. e. f. 30. 11. 2000 to the respondent no. 3 Assistant Director for forwarding the same to the respondent no. 2 Director. THE said application of the petitioner dated 16. 9. 2000 (Annex. P/3) for withdrawal of his earlier application dated 11. 9. 2000 (Annex. P/1) was forwarded by the respondent no. 3 Assistant Director to the respondent no. 2 Director through letter dated 29. 9. 2000 (Annex. P/4 ). But, the respondent no. 2 Director through impugned order Annex. P/5 dated 22. 11. 2000 ordered voluntary retirement of the petitioner with effect from 30. 11. 2000. In this writ petition, the order Annex. P/5 dated 22. 11. 2000 has been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds and the main ground of challenge is that tendering of voluntary retirement and resignation can be withdrawn before it can be accepted by the competent authority and since in the present case through application dated 16. 9. 2000 (Annex. P/3), the petitioner had already sought withdrawal of his earlier application Annex. P/1 dated 11. 9. 2000 seeking voluntary retirement w. e. f. 30. 11. 2000, therefore, the impugned order Annex. /5 dated 22. 11. 2000 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and the same should be set aside. It was further submitted by the petitioner that the date when the impugned order Annex. P/5 was passed, there was no resignation left to be acted upon by the respondents and therefore, from this point of view also, the impugned order Annex. P/5 cannot be sustained and it should be set aside. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and in that reply, it was submitted by the respondents that the impugned order Annex. P/5 passed by the respondent No. 2 Director is legal and within the competence of the respondent No. 2 and thus, no interference is called for with the same. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

(3.) IN latest judgment dated 13. 3. 2002 in the case of Shambhu Murari Sinha vs. Project and Development INdia Ltd. (4), the Hon'ble Supreme court held that in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a `prospective' resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective' and it, becomes effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office tenure of the resignor.