Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in the second round of litigation aggrieved by the communication Annex. 10 dtd. 7.12.2005, whereby the respondent - -Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. rejected his representation regarding voluntary retirement sought by him w.e.f. 30.6.1998 and having accepted the retiral and financial benefits from such voluntary retirement way back in the year 1998 itself.
(2.) IN the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, namely, SBCWP No. 4173/1998 - -Isha khan and anr. V/s. Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. decided on 24.8.2005, a copy of which is placed on record, the learned Single Judge of this Court held as under: Be that as it may, one thing is clear that once the employee has accepted the financial gains under the scheme for voluntary retirement he cannot thereafter be permitted to retract from the position. However, if the petitioner's application dated 09.03.1998 is read in his favour the only equitable relief to which he is entitled in the present proceedings is that he may be permitted to represent his case to the department authorities. In view of the above, in case the petitioners make representation to the authorities for re -consideration of their case, in that event, the respondents shall consider their representation in consonance with the petitioner's application dated 09.03.1998 within a period of two months and pass appropriate order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. It appears that in view of liberty given to the petitioner in the earlier order, the petitioner filed the representation before the respondent - -Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. and ors. vide Annex. 9 dtd. 15.10.2005 again, which was rejected by the impugned communication dtd. 6.12.2005, Annex. 10 and hence again the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that no interference in the impugned communication is called for and the petitioner had acquiesced the matter having retired from the services of the respondents on 30.6.1998. A bare perusal of the conditions stipulated by him in Annex. 1 voluntary retirement application dtd. 20.2.1998 clearly shows that he wanted to dictate the terms to the employer respondent -RSMML and on the basis of purported non -compliance of the said conditions after so many years, the petitioner wants to agitate this issue and revoke his voluntary retirement application in this manner repeatedly over again and therefore, this writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.;