PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By submitting an application dated 14.3.2000 the petitioner, a Driver working in the office of the Assistant Engineer, Mahi Project Dam Site, sought permission to have voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 31.3.2000. Acting upon the application the Chief Engineer, Mahi Project, Banswara vide order dated 18.3.2000 granted approval for voluntary retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.3.2000. The petitioner, however, on 31.3.2000 withdrew the application seeking voluntary retirement. The respondents in spite of withdrawal of the application for voluntary retirement, retired the petitioner from service, thus, this petition for writ is preferred. The argument advanced by counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner before coming into effect of the retirement withdrew the application, therefore, the competent authority has erroneously retired him from service. It is also stated that a writ petition of similar nature (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4673/2000, Gulab Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) has already been accepted by this Court and as such this petition for writ deserves to be accepted in light of the judgment dated 29.7.2002, (GULAB SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR, 2003 3 RajLW 1842) passed in the case of Gulab Singh .

(2.) While contesting the petition, it is submitted by counsel for the respondents that the cause being agitated at belated stage is not required to be examined. It is asserted that the petitioner came to be retired from service on 31.3.2000 and he availed all post retrial benefits without any objection. He did not choose to raise any objection regarding retirement for good three years. At the first instance a notice for demand of justice was received at his instance through his counsel in the month of February, 2003 and the writ petition thereafter was filed in the month of March, 2003 i.e. after a lapse of three years from the date of retirement, without having sufficient explanation for such delay.

(3.) On merits, it is submitted that in the case of Gulab Singh the Court did not examine scope of Rule 50 of the Rajasthan civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1996") which prescribes to have voluntary retirement on completion of 15 years of qualifying service. According to Rule 50 aforesaid a Government servant who has elected to retire under this Rule and has given necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority provided that the request for withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement. In the instant matter the application was not submitted before the intended date, but on intended date only.