1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 228 of 2009 SATYA PAL V/S UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Mr. MAHIPAL RAJPUROHIT, for the appellant Date of Order : 18.2.2009 HON'BLE SHRI AM KAPADIA,J. HON'BLE SHRI SANGEET LODHA,J. ORDER ----- This special appeal is directed against the order dated 18.11.2008 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5692 of 2007 by the learned Single Judge, whereby the prayer made by the appellant to issue direction to the respondents to accept voluntary retirement of the appellant without the rider that he should personally remain present before the authority has been refused and consequently writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed as having become infructuous. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that appellant was transferred from 527 SSTC(P)CTK to 426 RMP/117 RCC(P)VTK. On receiving the order of transfer, 2 the appellant submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 31.01.2007, which came to be withdrawn on 22.02.2007. Thereafter, the appellant filed petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana challenging the order of transfer and also pressing his voluntary retirement. The said petition also came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.03.2007. Thereafter, again the appellant submitted application for voluntary retirement, which was withdrawn on 17.04.2007 and pursuant to the order of transfer dated 13.01.2007 the competent authority passed a movement order for departure of the appellant to the transferred place on 28.06.2007 afternoon. On receiving the movement order, appellant again submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement and also filed writ petition for direction upon respondents to accept his retirement voluntarily. After considering the reply filed by the respondents and in view of the fact that the respondents already accepted the request of the appellant for voluntary retirement, learned Single Judge observed that the petition has become infructuous and has dismissed the petition. The request of the appellant for issuing direction to the respondents to not to compel the appellant to appear personally at the unit where he was transferred has been negatived. There is no dispute that the appellant is an armed personnel and he is required to act in accordance with the desired discipline. After issuance of the order of 3 movement, the competent authority to consider his request for voluntary retirement is Commanding Officer of the unit to which the appellant is transferred and not OC 527 SSTC (GREF), and therefore, obviously the appellant has to report at the place where he is transferred for seeking voluntary retirement. That apart as per Rules in vogue, the appellant is required to report physically in his present unit i.e. 426 RMPL/117 RCC/GREF) before proceeding on voluntary retirement, which is evident from letter dated 20.10.2008 issued by the Headquarter, 768 Border Roads Task Force to the appellant In view of the aforesaid fact situation, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition as having become infructuous and also turned down the request that his voluntary retirement should be accepted without presenting himself before the competent authority of the place where he has been transferred, and therefore, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order which requires interference by this Court in this special appeal. The appeal lacks merit, it is accordingly dismissed. ( SANGEET LODHA ),J. ( AM KAPADIA ),J. JPA