Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
BALBIR SINGH NEGI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/03/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (4) 126 1996 SCALE (3)338
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
The SLP is filed against the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Circuit at Shimla
made on 17.11.1995 in O.A. No.758/HP/91. The petitioner,
admittedly, after completing his 33 years of qualifying
service submitted, on February 18, 1991, an application for
voluntary retirement under Section 48A of Pension Rules
which came to be accepted on May 2, 1991 w.e.f. June 30,
1991 as requested by him. After the receipt of this letter
and acceptance on the even date, namely, May 2, 1991 and of
another letter dated May 23, 1991, he sought to withdraw his
application for voluntary retirement which he had submitted
but was not accepted by the authorities. Thereafter, he
filed O.A. in the Tribunal contending that he is entitled to
withdraw his application before the relationship of master
and servant becomes operative, i.e., July 1, 1991.
Acceptance of his resignation before that date, i.e.,
30.6.1991 is not valid in law. Under Rule 48-A of the
Pension Rules, a Government servant, on completion of
required period of service, is entitled to make a request
for voluntary retirement. Admittedly, that request was
acceded to and resignation was accepted. Learned counsel for
the petitioner sought to rely upon the judgment of this
Court in Balram Gupta vs. Union of India [(1987) Supp. SCC
228] in which this Court held that a Government servant
after making application but before it becomes effective and
relationship of master and the servant ceases operate, is
entitled to withdraw the resignation. that case, on the
facts and circumstances, it was held that he was pressurized
in the first instance to voluntary retire. With a view to
get it over he had submitted his application for voluntary
retirement. Subsequently, he reconciled. The entitlement to
withdraw the application for voluntary retirement was
accepted by this Court. It is seen that in this case,
admittedly, the petitioner has stated that he was on leave
for one year prior to the date of seeking voluntary
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
retirement on medical grounds and he was unable to discharge
the duties and that, therefore, he had sought to voluntarily
retire from service. It would appear that when he was
transferred from Shimla to Faridabad, he had submitted his
application in a huff for voluntary retirement and that
thereafter he came forward with the application for
withdrawal. It is true that the petitioner was entitled to
withdraw the resignation. But in view of the fact that he
has already attained the superannuation in normal
circumstances on February 28, 1994, no useful purpose will
be served by giving direction to permit him to withdraw his
application.
Under these circumstances, the petition is dismissed.