1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4741/2004. : : Swaroop Narain Shukla Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 25.9.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Suresh Kashyap for the petitioner. Mr.Shyam Sunder Sharma for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 10.6.2004 whereby the respondents withdrew their earlier order dated 29.3.2004. By this order dated 29.3.2004, also an order passed still earlier on 28.2.2004 was withdrawn, by which the application of the petitioner dated 12.2.2004 for voluntary retirement was accepted and he was directed to retire w.e.f. 1.4.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Government servant has right to withdraw his voluntary retirement before the expiry of notice period or the date with effect from which the retirement has to come into effect. In the present case, once the respondent having accepted his 2 request and revoked the order of retirement, could not again revive the same in the manner it has been done by the impugned order. Learned Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that in fact even after passing of the order dated 29.3.2004 withdrawing the order of retirement the petitioner stood relived from 1.4.2004, which is evident from the fact that he stopped attending the school. According to Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 a Government servant can serve a notice of three months for voluntary retirement, which may be accepted by the competent authority. The Government servant has a right to withdraw such notice of voluntary retirement either before the expiry of notice period or any date before the date of retirement comes into effect. When the request of the petitioner withdrawing the notice for voluntary retirement was accepted and the competent authority by order dated 29.4.2004 withdrew the order of his retirement, it would be as if there was no notice for voluntary retirement and there was no order retiring him voluntarily w.e.f. 1.4.2004. The respondents by passing the order dated 10.6.2004 could not revive such an order on the assumed fact of reliving the petitioner. If the petitioner had stopped 3 attending the duties, it was open to them to proceed against him in departmental action but his services could not be brought to an end in this summary manner. The order dated 10.6.2004 is, therefore, ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed and set aside. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 10.6.2004 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to continue in service with consequential benefits. Compliance of the judgment be made within three months from the date copy of the judgment is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.27.