Singh Negi Vs. Union of India & Ors  INSC 455 (25 March 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
JT 1996 (4) 126 1996 SCALE (3)338
O R D
SLP is filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh
Bench, Circuit at Shimla made on 17.11.1995 in O.A. No.758/HP/91. The
petitioner, admittedly, after completing his 33 years of qualifying service
submitted, on February 18, 1991, an application for voluntary retirement under
Section 48A of Pension Rules which came to be accepted on May 2, 1991 w.e.f.
June 30, 1991 as requested by him. After the receipt of this letter and
acceptance on the even date, namely, May 2, 1991 and of another letter dated May 23, 1991, he sought to withdraw his
application for voluntary retirement which he had submitted but was not
accepted by the authorities. Thereafter, he filed O.A. in the Tribunal
contending that he is entitled to withdraw his application before the
relationship of master and servant becomes operative, i.e., July 1, 1991.
of his resignation before that date, i.e., 30.6.1991 is not valid in law. Under
Rule 48-A of the Pension Rules, a Government servant, on completion of required
period of service, is entitled to make a request for voluntary retirement.
Admittedly, that request was acceded to and resignation was accepted. Learned
counsel for the petitioner sought to rely upon the judgment of this Court in Balram
Gupta vs. Union of India [(1987) Supp. SCC 228] in which this Court held that a
Government servant after making application but before it becomes effective and
relationship of master and the servant ceases operate, is entitled to withdraw
the resignation. that case, on the facts and circumstances, it was held that he
was pressurized in the first instance to voluntary retire. With a view to get
it over he had submitted his application for voluntary retirement.
Subsequently, he reconciled. The entitlement to withdraw the application for
voluntary retirement was accepted by this Court. It is seen that in this case,
admittedly, the petitioner has stated that he was on leave for one year prior
to the date of seeking voluntary retirement on medical grounds and he was
unable to discharge the duties and that, therefore, he had sought to
voluntarily retire from service. It would appear that when he was transferred
from Shimla to Faridabad, he had submitted his application
in a huff for voluntary retirement and that thereafter he came forward with the
application for withdrawal. It is true that the petitioner was entitled to
withdraw the resignation. But in view of the fact that he has already attained
the superannuation in normal circumstances on February 28, 1994, no useful purpose will be served by giving direction to
permit him to withdraw his application.
these circumstances, the petition is dismissed.