Gyan Sudha Misra, J. - (1.) THE question involved in this writ petition is whether the petitioner's application seeking voluntarily retirement could be treated to have taken effect although he had withdrawn the letter/application seeking voluntarily retirement prior to the date from which it was to be made effective.
(2.) THE summary of circumstances under which this writ petition arises is that the petitioner was functioning as a Supervisor in the State of Rajasthan in the Department of Agriculture. He then appears to have taken a willful decision to seek voluntarily retirement from the service of the State and therefore submitted an application on 29.12.2000 seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 31.3.2001. He however gave a second thought to his decision and finally considered it proper to withdraw the letter seeking voluntary retirement on 23.2.2001. This he did in pursuance of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 which allows the liberty of three months period for withdrawing the letter seeking voluntary retirement which reads as follows: fu;e 50 ¼iUnzg 1/2 o"kkZs dh vgZdkjh lsok djus ij lsok fuo'fRr& ¼1 1/2 ,d ljdkjh deZpkjh us tc ¼15 1/2 o"kksZ dh vgZdkjh lsok iw.kZ dj yh gks rks mlds ckn fdlh Hkh le; og fu;qfDr inkf/kdkjh dks U;wure rhu ekg dk fyf[kr uksfVl ns dj lsok ls fuo''Rr gks ldsxk A ¼2 1/2 mi&fu;e ¿1À ds v/khu fn;s x;s LoSfPNd lsok fuo'fRr ds uskfVl ij fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh dh Lohd'fr vko;'d gksxh% ijUrq ;g fd tgka fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh mDr uksfVl es fofufnZ"V vof/k dh lekfIr ls iwoZ gh lsok fuo'fRr ds fy, vuqefr nsus ls euk ugh djrk gS rks mDr vof/k dh lekfIr dh rkjh[k ls og lsokfuo'fRr Lor% izHkkoh gks tk;sxh A The respondents however, inspite of the aforesaid Rule refused permission to the petitioner to withdraw his letter seeking voluntary retirement without assigning any reason. The petitioner ultimately had to knock the doors of this Court by filing this writ petition as he was not held eligible to continue in service in view of his withdrawal letter which was sent to the respondents as per Sub -Rule 4 of Rule 50 of the aforesaid Rules. A show cause notice was therefore issued on the writ petition but the respondents inspite of sufficient opportunities neither filed reply to this writ petition nor their counsel appeared before this Court to contest the matter, although it was adjourned on several occasions. Today also the matter was called out twice but the counsel for the respondent -State failed to appear although the counsel, for the petitioner informed the counsel for the respondents as instructed by this Court that a final order will be dictated in case he fails to appear. Yet he has chosen not to appear nor there in anyone on his behalf seeking adjournment. The counsel for the petitioner was therefore heard ex -parte who has submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision delivered in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy : (2001) 1 SCC 158 wherein it has been held that where resignation was to have effect from a future date, it can be withdrawn at any time before that date. It was specifically held therein that where the withdrawal was sought even prior to acceptance of the resignation which was to be effective from a future date, then in absence of any contrary statutory provision or rule, right to withdraw cannot be denied merely on the basis of any policy decision of Govt. or certificate issued by the resigner himself at the time of tendering the resignation on the ground that he was aware that he could not later seek cancellation of his application for resignation.
(3.) APPLYING the ratio of the aforesaid decision, it is more than obvious that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Union of India and Anr. v. Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy, (supra) as also Rules 50(4) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pensions) Rules which reinforces the plea of the petitioner's advocate who had urged that the petitioner's application seeking voluntary retirement could not have been made effective prior to 31.3.2001 as per the letter of the petitioner dated 23.2.2001 who had chosen to withdraw it by sending a letter of request to the respondents for cancelling his application seeking voluntary retirement. This was ignored by the respondents inspite of the specific rule in this regard although there was not even a policy decision of the State Government to that effect as was the situation in the case relied upon by the petitioner's advocate. Thus the petitioner's case in this matter stands on a still higher footing than the case of the employee which was the subject matter of consideration before the Supreme Court in the case referred to hereinbefore.;