1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4359/2008 Anurag Kumar Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order :: 16.9.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Vineet Jain, for the petitioner. ... The petitioner on 14.12.2006 submitted an application to the authority competent seeking voluntary retirement from service as per the provisions of sub-rule (i) of Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996 and the same stood accepted under an order dated 15.2.2007. The effective date for retirement as accepted by the authority competent was 31.5.2007, however, prior to that on 1.5.2007 the petitioner withdrew the application dated 14.12.2006. In spite of withdrawal of the intended voluntary retirement before the effective date, the competent authority retired the petitioner from service on 31.5.2007, hence, this petition for writ is preferred. As per the petitioner he withdrew the application of voluntary retirement prior to effective date for retirement, therefore, he was erroneously retired from service on 31.5.2007. It is urged that the authority competent should have reconsidered the decision for retirement and an order accordingly should have been passed. No reply 2 to the writ petition has been filed, however, it is stated that as the application seeking voluntary retirement was accepted by the competent authority on 15.2.2007, therefore, there was no occasion to reconsider the issue and the petitioner was rightly placed under retirement w.e.f. 31.5.2007. Having considered the rival contentions and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of J.N. Srivastava Vs. Union of India and Another reported in 1998(9) SCC – 559, Power Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Pramod Kumar Bhatia reported in 1997(4) SCC 280 and Shambhu Murari Sinha Vs. Project and Development India reported in 2000 (2) SCT 807, I am of the considered opinion that acceptance of the voluntary retirement before withdrawal of the request for voluntary retirement does not preclude the appointing authority from changing its decision, if the effective date for retirement is not arrived. In the instant matter the effective date of retirement was 31.5.2007 and the petitioner submitted an application on 1.5.2007 withdrawing intended retirement from service, thus, the appropriate course before the competent authority was to reconsider its decision. For the reasons stated above this petition for writ deserves acceptance. Hence, the same is allowed. The application dated 3 1.5.2007 submitted by the petitioner to withdraw the application dated 14.12.2006 is accepted and the decision of the respondent No.1 to retire the petition from service w.e.f. 31.5.2007 is declared illegal. The same is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '