1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2830/2007. RADHEY SHYAM MIDHA VS. DISTT. & SESSIONS JUDGE, HANUMANGARH. DATE OF ORDER : 04.04.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. G.R. Goyal for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Chaudhary for the respondents. The petitioner on 19.04.2007 submitted an application to the authority competent seeking voluntary retirement from service as per the provisions of sub-Rule 1 of Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, and the same stood accepted under an order dated 20.04.2007. The effective date for retirement as accepted by the authority competent was 30.04.2007. However, prior to that on 23.04.2007, the petitioner withdrew the application dated 19.04.2007. In spite of withdrawal of request for voluntary retirement before the effective date, the authority competent retired the petitioner from service on 30.04.2007, hence this petition for writ is preferred. An application for withdrawal of intending retirement was given prior to effective date of retirement, hence, his 2 retirement from service w.e.f. 30.04.2007 is bad in eye of law, that is the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner, and, while contesting the same, it is urged that the authority competent accepted the request for voluntary retirement prior to 23.04.2007, thus, the petitioner was rightly retired from service. 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 resignation before withdrawal of the request for voluntary retirement does not preclude the appointing authority from changing its decision, if the retirement has not been effected. In the instant matter, the effective date of retirement was 30.04.2007 and the petitioner submitted the application for withdrawal of the application dated 19.04.2007, thus, the appropriate course before appointing authority was to re- consider its decision irrespective of the fact that the request for voluntary retirement was accepted earlier. 3 For the reasons stated above, this petition for writ deserves acceptance, hence, the same is allowed. The application submitted by the petitioner dated 23.04.2007 to withdraw the application dated 19.04.2007 is accepted and the decision of the respondent No.1 to retire the petitioner from service w.e.f. 30.04.2007 is declared illegal and, therefore, the same is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. No order to cost. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/