- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sameer Sharma, Advocate who has appeared on behalf of respondents.
(2.) BY means of the present petition, petitioner prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 17-6-1987, whereby the repre sentation filed by the petitioner has been rejected and the order, dated 16-5-1984 whereby the request of voluntary retirement of the petitioner was accepted by respon dent No. 1. A prayer for writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to treat the notice dated 1-3-1984 as null and void, has also been made. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was holding the post of Junior Station Incharge, for the reasons best known to him, served a notice dated 1-3-1984 that he will retire from service with effect from 1-6-1984. The request made by the petitioner to retire voluntarily was ac cepted by the competent authority. There after the petitioner made an application dated 25-3-1989, whereby he wanted to withdraw the request of voluntary retire ment, which was not accepted by the respon dents, therefore, the petitioner had to ap proach this Court and file the writ petition No. 8697 of 1987. The said petition was finally disposed of vide judgment and order dated 14-4-1987. In compliance of the order passed by. this Court, the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected on 17-6-1987. Petitioner, thereafter, filed the present petition with the prayers indicated above. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner was legally entitled to withdraw the request. of voluntary retirement at any time. The view taken to the contrary by the respon dents is illegal and the orders impugned in the present petition are liable to be quashed. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions of Apex Court of the country:- (i) Raj Kumar v. Union of India AIR 1969 SC 180. (ii) Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra, AIR 1978 SC 694 (iii) Balram Gupta v. Union of India and another, AIR 1987 SC 2354.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on be half of the respondents contended that the petitioner has served the notice dated 1-3-1984 to retire from service voluntarily with effect from 1-6-1984, i. e. on expiry of three months. The request made by him was ac cepted by the competent authority and the petitioner actually retired from service on 1-6-1984. After retirement from service, there was no justification for the petitioner to make an application to withdraw the let ter of resignation. He further submits that before 1-6-1984 the petitioner could withdraw the letter of resignation, but not thereafter. The application for withdrawal made by the petitioner on 25-3-1985, was rightly rejected by the authorities below as the resignation became effective and the petitioner has already retired from service with effect from 1-6-1984. For the purposes of the present case, Regulation 38 of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation Service Regulations 1981, is relevant, which is quoted below:- "38. Compulsory and voluntary retire ment.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 37, the appointing authority may at any time, by notice to an employee (whether per manent or temporary), not being a workman, require him to retire after he attains the age of fifty years without assigning any reason. Such employee may likewise by notice to the appointing authority voluntarily retire at any time after at -. taining the age of 45 years or after he has com pleted the qualifying service of twenty years. (2) The period of such notice shall be three months: Provided that- (i) any such employee may, by order of the appointing authority without such notice, or by a shorter notice, be retired forthwith at any time after attaining the age of fifty years and on such retirement the employee shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances, if any, for the period of the notice, or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of three months, at the same rates which he was drawing immediately before his retirement; (ii) it shall be open to the appointing authority to allow an employee to retire without any notice or by a shorter notice without requiring the employee to pay penalty in lieu of notice: Provided further that such notice given by an employee against whom disciplinary proceed ing is pending or contemplated, shall be effective only if it is accepted by the appointing authority, provided that in the case of a contemplated dis ciplinary proceeding the member of service shall be informed before the expiry of his notice that it has not been accepted: Provided also that the notice once given by an employee under sub-regulation (1) seeking voluntary retirement shall not be withdrawn by him except with the permission of appointing authority. ";