Vijender Jain, J. - (1.) IN this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against judgment dated 28.3.1995 of the learned Single Judge vide which C.W.P.No.2316 of 1991 filed by the appellant was dismissed, the following two questions have been thrown up for determination by this Bench: (i)Whether the request for voluntary retirement could be withdrawn after its acceptance, but before it became effect? (ii)Whether the order rejecting the prayer for withdrawal can be termed arbitrary?
(2.) THE appellant, while serving in Indian Army as a Junior Commissioned Officer, made a request for voluntary retirement in June,1990, which was considered by the Unit Petition Committee. The said committee recommended his case for premature retirement. On 18.6.1990, the Commanding Officer, who had received the recommendation of the committee, finding the case to be genuine, recommended the case of the appellant to the higher authorities for premature retirement. Consequently, discharge orders were issued on 20.7.1990, according to which voluntary retirement of the appellant was to take effect from 30.4.1991. The appellant, who had a re -think, made a request for withdrawal of the request for voluntary retirement vide letter dated 1.12.1990. The prayer of the appellant was however , rejected by the competent authority while exercising its power under Rule 11(2) of the Army Rules,1954 (for short, 'the Rules'). The appellant assailed the action of the respondents by way of C.W.P.No.2316 of 1991 which was decided on 28.3.1995 negativing his plea. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, observed amongst other observations, as follows: Moreover, once the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement has been accepted, no matter it was to take effect from a future date, the petitioner has no right to withdraw it. The main grievance of the appellant is that he had the option to withdraw his prayer for voluntary retirement before it came into effect and mere acceptance thereof without notice to him would not dis -entitle him to withdraw the same. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
(3.) IN our opinion, the aforementioned observation of the learned Single Judge is erroneous and is also apparently in conflict with the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules. The settled proposition of law is that a person can withdraw his resignation or request for voluntary retirement before the same becomes effective and when the arrangement between the employer and such an employee actually terminates. Sustenance can be drawn from the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. : (1978)ILLJ492SC and Shambhu Murari Sinha v. : (2000)IILLJ935SC .;