- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 2793 OF 2009 Sarjerao Govindrao Kadam ..Petitioner Vs. The Chief Justice, High Court, Bombay & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Sr. counsel i/b M/s. Y.K.S. Legal, for the Petitioner. Mr. P. S. Dani, Sr. counsel a/w Mrs. S. S. Bhende, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : JANUARY 29, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The writ petition is directed against the impugned communication dated 30th September 2008 issued by the Registrar General, High Court, Bombay whereby the petitioner was informed that his request to convert his resignation into voluntary retirement from service has been rejected by the Hon’ble Chief Justice and other Judges of this Court. The learned senior counsel challenged - 2 - the impugned communication on two grounds – (i) that so far as provisions of Rule 46 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 are concerned, there is no prohibition in entertaining the request of the petitioner and treating the resignation of the petitioner as a request of voluntary retirement and permitting the petitioner to retire voluntarily from services so that he would be entitled to get post retirement benefits; (ii) the learned senior counsel for the petitioner further contended that the impugned order/communication is non-reasoned order and therefore, suffers from non-application of mind. It is therefore, contended that on both these counts, the impugned order is unsustainable in law. 2. The learned AGP for the respondents has supported the impugned order and has submitted that the same is consistent with the provisions of Rule 46 of 1982 Rules. It is contended that in the instant case it is not in dispute that the petitioner voluntarily submitted his resignation which was accepted by the respondent and therefore, as per Rule 46 of 1982 Rules the past service of the petitioner was forfeited. It is further contended that the order of rejection of the request of the petitioner by the Hon’ble Chief Justice is only after due application of mind and therefore, the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is misconceived. 3. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the - 3 - learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the provisions of Rule 46, of 1982 Rules. In the instant case it is not in dispute that the petitioner submitted the resignation voluntarily to the respondent, which was duly accepted by the respondent. At this stage, it will be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Rule 46 of 1982 Rules. Rule 46(1) of the said Rules contemplates that resignation from service for a post entails forfeiture of the past service. The rule is very specific and clear that once the resignation is tendered and is accepted, the necessary consequence would be forfeiture of past service and therefore, question of entertaining the request of the petitioner to treat his resignation as request for permitting him to retire voluntarily does not arise and therefore, the decision taken by the Hon’ble Chief Justice is just and proper which is consistent with the scheme of the 1982 Rules and is also sustainable in law. The petition suffers from lack of merits. No case is made out for our indulgence. Consequently therefore, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- [D. D. SINHA, J.] Sd/- [ A. A. SAYED, J.]