C.W.P.No.5558 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.5558 of 2008 Date of Decision : 03.04.2008 Brij Raj Krishan Syal .....Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Shri Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Shri Vijay Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner challenges the communications Annexure P-13 and P-14 whereby the request of the petitioner to seek voluntary retirement under the General Insurance Officers Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the '2004 Scheme'), was declined. The petitioner sought the voluntary retirement under the aforesaid Scheme vide request dated 22.1.2004, Annexure P-2. Such request was declined on 14.3.2005 vide Annexure P-13. Thereafter, on 29.3.2005, the petitioner sought voluntary retirement in terms of the General Insurance (Termination, Superannuation and Retirement of Officers and Development Staff) Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the `Rules'), applicable to all the members of staff as normal service C.W.P.No.5558 of 2008 2 conditions. The said request of the petitioner was accepted on 20.4.2005 vide Annexure P-19 and thereafter, the petitioner was relieved from duties from the services of the Company w.e.f. the close of the office hours on 20.4.2005. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court almost 3 years of the passing of the order rejecting his request for voluntary retirement under the 2004 Scheme and after his request under the Rules has been accepted and communicated to him. Apart from the delay, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is estopped to claim the voluntary retirement under the 2004 Scheme having opted for voluntary retirement under the Rules. Once the petitioner has opted for voluntary retirement under the Rules, it is not open to the petitioner to fall back to assert that he should have been retired under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004. The petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate in the same breath. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition which may warrant interference of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 03-04-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE