1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4057/2004. (ANIL KUMAR PAREEK & ORS. VS. THE CHAIRMAN, RRVPN LTD.) DATE OF ORDER : 16.01.2007. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Sachin Acharya for the petitioner/s. Mr. Ravi Bhansali for the respondent/s. By this petition for writ, number of claims are made by the petitioners including to declare the order dated 02.09.2003 passed by the Executive Engineer, Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam, Bhilwara illegal whereby the request of one Shri Ghanshyam Pareek seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 01.10.03 was accepted, to appoint the petitioner No.1 on compassionate grounds and to release the retiral benefits for which late Shri Ghanshyam Pareek was entitled to the petitioners. In brief, facts of the case are that father of the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 and husband of the petitioner no.2 Shri Ghanshyam Pareek was in employment of Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Bhilwara as Chowkidar and he submitted an application on 01.09.03 seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 01.10.03. The Executive Engineer (respondent No.3) under an order dated 02.09.03 accepted the request for voluntary retirement of Shri Ghanshyam Pareek w.e.f. 01.10.03. 2 Shri Ghanshyam Pareek died on 06.10.03. However, according to the petitioners on 03.09.03 itself Shri Ghanshyam Pareek submitted an application to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent erroneously retired Shri Ghanshyam Pareek w.e.f. 01.10.03 as the request for voluntary retirement was already submitted prior to coming into effect the retirement. By considering Shri Ghanshyam Pareek in employment, a direction is also sought for appointment of petitioner no.1 on compassionate grounds. In alternative, the petitioners have also claimed for grant of all retiral benefits to them being the legal heirs of late Shri Ghanshyam Pareek. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the application Annexure 4 dated 03.09.03 was never given to them. It is also asserted that the retiral benefits for which the petitioners are entitled have already been released and given to the legal heirs of late Shri Ghanshyam Pareek. Heard counsel for the parties. 3 From perusal of the application dated 03.09.2003 (Annexure 4), it is manifest that the same was given to the Superintending Engineer, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., whereas late Shri Ghanshyam Pareek was in employment of Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., and Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. are two different companies and a letter/application addressed to the Superintending Engineer of Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. could not be treated as an application submitted to the competent authority for the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam for withdrawal of the application seeking voluntary retirement. The application concerned is having no consequence to the withdrawal of voluntary retirement sought under application dated 01.09.03 as it was submitted to an stranger. Therefore, the case of the petitioners with regard withdrawal of voluntary retirement is having no force. The respondents rightly retired Shri Ghanshyam Pareek voluntarily w.e.f. 01.10.03, consequent thereto the claim of the petitioners for appointment of petitioner no.1 on compassionate ground is also mis-conceived. It is stated at Bar by counsel for the respondent Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. that whatever retiral-cum-death benefits accruing in favour of the petitioners 4 have already been released and paid to them. This fact is not disputed by counsel for the petitioners. In view of it, this cause too does not survive. Accordingly, this petition for writ is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/