B.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 21-11-1994, contained in Annexure 2 to this petition, by which the representation of the petitioner for withdrawing/quashing the order dated 10-4-1990, contained in Annexure 9, has been rejected.
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was appointed as Constable in Civil Police in 1959 and was promoted as Head Constable in 1967. He was further given promotion on the post of Sub-Inspector in 1975. On 2-10-1988 petitioner made a representation/ application (Annexure 3) to give him voluntary retirement under Rule 244 (1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred as "the Rules") with certain conditions. However, the competent authority, vide letter dated 21-1-1989 (Annexure 4) informed petitioner that such a conditional application cannot be entertained under the provisions of Rule 244(1) of the Rules and if he is willing, he can move a fresh application containing no condition. Petitioner filed a fresh application on 2-2-1990 (Annexure 6) and sought voluntary retirement within the provisions of Rule 244(1) of the Rules. The said application was accepted vide order dated 10-4-1990 (Annexure 9), wherein it was stated that he would retire on 3-5-1990, i.e., after expiry of three months period of the notice. On 21-4-1990, petitioner made an application to withdraw the order dated 10-4-1990; however no order was passed on that application. Petitioner was given certain benefits vide orders dated 3-1-1991 and 18-12-1993 as is evident from Annexures I and 2 to the additional affidavit filed by the respondents.
(3.) It appears that the petitioner had challenged the order dated 10-4-1990 in an earlier writ petition. S B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4132/1991. It is alleged by the petitioner that the said writ petition was heard and disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21-9-1994, by which petitioner was permitted to file a fresh representation before the competent authority and the authority would decide it in accordance with law within a stipulated period. It appears that petitioner made a representation on 23-9-1994 (Annexure 1) wherein he had asked the authorities to quash the order dated 10-4-1990 for the reason that according to him the letter dated 2-2-1990 was also conditional and as the conditions had not been accepted by the respondents authority, the said acceptance would be bad in law. The said representation has been rejected vide impugned order dated 21-11-1994 (Annexure 2) on the ground that the petitioner had already been given the entire benefit of retirement and he had accepted the same without any protest and such an application cannot be considered. Moreover, his resignation was accepted without any terms and conditions. Hence this writ petition.;