IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4593 of 2000 Between: P.Venkatramana S/o.Butchiraju R/o.H.No.6-6-419/C, Behind Praga Tools Ganchinagar Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Principal Director of Audit South Central Railway Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the voluntary retirement into services in view of changed material circumstances consequently by setting aside the order passed by the Hon'ble Central Admn Tribunal in O.A.No.1142/99, dt.17-12-99. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.S.MURTHY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4593 of 2000 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) This writ petition is filed questioning the order, dated 17-12-1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”) in O.A.No.1142 of 1999. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was working as Assistant Audit Officer made an application dated 27-08-1997 requesting for voluntary retirement and the said request was accepted and accordingly, he retired from Government service with effect from 07-10-1997. Consequently, he was granted pension and other retiremental benefits as per Rules and he also accepted the said benefits. While so, on 29-04-1999, he made a representation to the respondent requesting for reinstatement into service by withdrawing his voluntary retirement notice on the ground that the age of retirement was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years. As no action has been taken, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1142 of 1999 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by order dated 17-12-1999 dismissed the said O.A. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare that the petitioner is entitled to withdraw his voluntary retirement notice and consequently entitled for reinstatement into service in view of changed material circumstances. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner is well aware of his retirement year and also other consequences like the length of service he is foregoing when he put forth his application for voluntary retirement on his own volition under the Rule. It is further stated that Rule 48(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, clearly states as follows:- “A Government servant, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the necessary intimation to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his election subsequently except with the specific approval of such authority. Provided that the request for withdrawal shall be within the intended date of his retirement.” It is further stated that as the petitioner has not made his request within the intended date of his retirement, he cannot be permitted to withdraw his voluntary retirement notice and therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the instant case, the petitioner submitted his application on 27-08-1997 requesting for voluntary retirement from the Government service and the said request was accepted and he accordingly retired from Government service with effect from 07-10- 1997 and that pension and all other retiremental benefits were also granted and the same was also accepted by the petitioner. Thereafter, on 29-04-1999, he made a representation to the respondent requesting for reinstatement into service by withdrawing his voluntary retirement notice on the ground that the age of retirement was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years. Admittedly, the petitioner has not made any such request before acceptance of his application but after acceptance of the application and after payment of pension and all other retiremental benefits, he has come up with such an application that too after lapse of one and half year. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner does not have any subsisting right so as to resile from that position subsequently. He retired from service as per his own decision and judgment. Rules do not permit to have unbridled freedom to quit the Government service as he likes and rejoin at any time, as he likes. Once his contract of employment has come to an end and he has received all his retirement benefits, he is estopped from taking round turn over. Merely because the age of superannuation is increased from 58 years to 60 years in the year 1998, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement that too after lapse of one and half year and after receiving pension and all other retiremental benefits. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in M.S.SOKHANDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[1]. In the aforesaid case, the Government servant made an application on 24-04-1998 requesting for voluntary retirement with effect from 16-05-1998 and the said request was accepted by the Government on 08-05-1998. In the meanwhile, on 12-05-1998, the Government announced its decision to enhance the retirement age of Government servants from fifty eight years to sixty years. Immediately, on the same day i.e., on 12-05-1998 the said Government servant made an application seeking permission to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement. In the instant case, the petitioner made the application after lapse of one and half year that too after receiving pension and all other retiremental benefits. As the facts of the aforesaid case are different and distinct from that of the present case, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the case on hand. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, had rightly dismissed the O.A. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J Date : 24-06-2009 Prv [1] 78 (1999) DELHI LAW TIMES 68 (DB)