DHANI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question involved in this writ petition is whether the petitioner's application seeking voluntarily retirement could be treated to have taken effect although he had withdrawn the letter/application seeking voluntarily retirement prior to the date from which it was to be made effective.

(2.) THE summary of circumstances under which this writ petition arises is that the petitioner was functioning as a Supervisor in the State of Rajasthan in the Department of Agriculture. He then appears to have taken a willful decision to seek voluntarily retirement from the service of the State and therefore submitted an application on 29.12.2000 seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 31.3.2001. He however gave a second thought to his decision and finally considered it proper to withdraw the letter seeking voluntary retirement on 23.2.2001. This he did in pursuance of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 which allows the liberty of three months period for withdrawing the letter seeking voluntary retirement which reads as follows:

(3.) APPLYING the ratio of the aforesaid decision, it is more than obvious that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Union of India and Anr. v. Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy, (supra) as also Rules 50(4) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pensions) Rules which reinforces the plea of the petitioner's advocate who had urged that the petitioner's application seeking voluntary retirement could not have been made effective prior to 31.3.2001 as per the letter of the petitioner dated 23.2.2001 who had chosen to withdraw it by sending a letter of request to the respondents for cancelling his application seeking voluntary retirement. This was ignored by the respondents inspite of the specific rule in this regard although there was not even a policy decision of the State Government to that effect as was the situation in the case relied upon by the petitioner's advocate. Thus the petitioner's case in this matter stands on a still higher footing than the case of the employee which was the subject matter of consideration before the Supreme Court in the case referred to hereinbefore.