- (1.) Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of order dated 14.12.2009 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 26.03.2010 (Annexure P-6) vide which the petitioner has been voluntarily retired from service w.e.f. 31.03.2010 on attaining the age of 55 years with a further prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till the age of super-annuation. Facts of the case are that the petitioner submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 11.11.2009. This request was to take effect from 31.03.2010. The said application was accepted by the respondents vide order dated 14.12.2009 (Annexure P-3), which was received by the petitioner on 19.03.2010. Petitioner, on 27.01.2010, submitted his representation to withdraw his application dated 11.11.2009, vide which he had sought voluntary retirement. This representation of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 26.03.2010 (Annexure P-6), which has been impugned in the present writ petition.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had given a notice for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.03.2010 and prior to the coming into force of the said request, although the same had been accepted on 14.12.2009, petitioner could withdraw his notice of retirement on voluntarily basis. He, on this basis, contends that having submitted an application for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement on 27.01.2010, the impugned order rejecting his application for withdrawal of the voluntary retirement cannot be accepted as the same is not in accordance with law. In support of this contention, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in CWP No. 19342 of 2005 titled as CD. Aneja v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 20.11.2006.
(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner, no doubt, could withdraw his application for voluntary retirement prior to the coming into force thereof on the acceptance of the competent authority but the withdrawal can only be sought with the permission of the competent authority which, in the present case, has not been granted. His further submission is that on the application for withdrawal of his voluntary retirement, petitioner was called for personal hearing by the Inspector General of Police on 08.03.2010. On appearance before the Inspector General of Police, Railways and Technical Services, Haryana, petitioner reiterated his desire to proceed on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.03.2010. It is, on this basis, that the permission for withdrawal from voluntarily retirement by the petitioner was not accepted. Accordingly, his contention is that the present writ petition cannot be allowed as the order of acceptance of the voluntary retirement of the petitioner is in accordance with law and further the mandate of Rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules requires the approval of the competent authority after the request for voluntary retirement has been accepted for withdrawing the same.;