1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.892/2002. : : Hari Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 27.1.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Rahul Choudhary for the petitioner. Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.3.2001 by which it was directed to retire him on voluntary basis w.e.f. 31.5.2001. Shri Rahul Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in Rajasthan Police at District Sikar on 10.9.1964. He due to family circumstances submitted an application before the Superintendent of Police, Sikar on 22.2.2001 seeking voluntary retirement. Subsequently he changed his mind and submitted that the said application has been filed in hot haste and owing to family circumstances he had some mental tension and on reconsideration, he realised 2 his mistake. He therefore submitted an application on 14.5.2001 well before 31.5.2001 when his notice of voluntary retirement would come into effect and he would be deemed to retire. The respondents refused to accept the prayer for revocation of earlier request cancel the application and informed him at police station, Sikar on 31.5.2001. The petitioner served a legal notice on the respondents on 23.7.2001. Shri Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel argued that application of the petitioner for withdrawal of the notice dated 14.5.2001 was considered and called the petitioner in the orderly room to explain the circumstances in which he submitted his application on 15.5.2001. When the petitioner did not appear he was served with a letter dated 24.5.2001 again informing that the if the petitioner failed to attend orderly room to explain the situation in which he was seeking to withdraw notice of voluntary retirement, he would be retired from the service. The petitioner appeared on 31.5.2002 and reiterated his request for withdrawal of his application of voluntary retirement from the service. Learned counsel cited copy of the entry made in Rojnamcha dated 31.5.2001 stating that 3 the petitioner signed the Rojnamcha and agreed to his voluntary retirement. Consideration of the arguments aforesaid and perusal of the documents placed by the respondents on record clearly show that the respondents have not only received the application, by which the petitioner withdrew the notice of voluntary retirement but such application was admittedly made 16 days before arrival of the date of voluntary retirement i.e. 31.5.2001. Rule 50 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 interalia provides that at any time a Government servant who has completed fifteen years qualifying service may by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 further gives the right to such a Government servant to withdraw the notice but this could be done with specific approval of such authority. The proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 provides that request for withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement. Although acceptance of request was made subject to approval by such competent authority, but nevertheless such competent authority cannot arbitrarily decline to acceptance the request 4 for withdrawal of the notice of voluntary retirement. Whatever may have been family circumstances owing to which the petitioner was persuaded to apply for voluntary retirement and then for its withdrawal were personal to him. Even though the power to approve the request was with the competent authority, in the present case, it is clear that such power has been arbitrarily exercised by the respondents. It is trite law that right to apply for voluntary retirement not an absolute right but at the same time, the government servant has the right to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement provided the order of retirement has not come into force and such request is made before arrival of the date of retirement. In view of above, the order of voluntary retirement is set aside. The petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. Compliance of judgment be made within three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.26.