P K AGRAWAL vs M/o Finance

1

(Reserved on 28.09.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
(Through video conferencing)

th
this the 15 day of October , 2026
HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Original Application No. 175 of 2015

P.K. Agrawal, S/o Late Shri D.P. Agrawal, DOB – 13.07.1958, R/o
272, Sanjeevnee Nagar, Jabalpur (MP) - 482003. …….Applicant

Advocate for the applicant: Shri Vijay Tripathi
V E R S U S
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North
Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service
Tax, 48, Administrative Area, Arera Hills, Hoshangabad
Road, Bhopal (MP) - 462001.
3. The Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax,
C.R. Building, Napier Town, Mission Chowk, Jabalpur (MP) -
482004. ………..Respondents

Advocate for the respondents: Shri Siddharth Seth


2026.10.16
16:58:08
+05'30'
ANAND
PRAKASH
Page 1 of 6
DUBEY

2

O R D E R
By Smt. Mallika Arya, AM.-

The present original application has been directed against the
order dated 24.02.2015 (Annexure A-1) by which the request of the
applicant for voluntary retirement has been accepted by the
respondent no. 3 .

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the
applicant submitted an application dated 27.10.2014 (Annexure A-2)
under Rule 48(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 seeking voluntary
retirement w.e.f. 31.01.2015. The applicant also filed another
application dated 20.11.2014 seeking his voluntary retirement w.e.f.
28.02.2015 (Annexure A-3). However, before acceptance of his
request, the applicant preferred an application dated 12.01.2015
(Annexure A-4) to withdraw his earlier applications for voluntary
retirement under Rule 48 (2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. The
learned counsel for the applicant has contended that despite the fact
that the applicant has filed his application to withdraw his earlier
applications for voluntary retirement prior to the effective date of his
retirement, the respondent no. 3 has issued order dated 24.02.2015
for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 28.02.2015 (Annexure A-1). The
2026.10.16
16:58:08
+05'30'
ANAND
PRAKASH
Page 2 of 6
DUBEY

3
learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the action of
the respondent no. 3 is illegal, unjustified and against the rules.

3. The respondents have filed their reply refuting the claim of
the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted
that upon accepting voluntary retirement, the CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972 do not provide any provisions that mandate the appointing
authority to consider or accept a subsequent cancellation request of
voluntary retirement. Referring to Rule 48(2) of the Pension Rules ,
the learned counsel for the respondents has stated that a
government servant, who has elected to retire under this rule and
has given necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority,
shall be precluded from withdrawing his election subsequently
except with the specific approval of such authority. Thus, the
learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that though the
applicant made a request to withdraw his application for voluntary
retirement in time but as per Rule 48(2), he is precluded from
withdrawing the application subsequently except with the specific
approval of the competent authority. Since the competent authority
has rejected the application for withdrawal, therefore, he is not
entitled for relief and prayed to dismiss the OA.
2026.10.16
16:58:08
+05'30'
ANAND
PRAKASH
Page 3 of 6
DUBEY

4

4. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicant has
emphasized that the voluntary retirement notice even if gets
accepted can be withdrawn within the time fixed before the date of
retirement is reached. In support of his contentions, he has placed
reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Balram Gupta vs. Union of India and another , 1987 (Supp) SCC
228, J.N. Srivastava vs. Union of India and another , (1998) 9 SCC
559 and Union of India and another vs. Wing Commander T.
Parthasarathy , (2001) 1 SCC 158. The learned counsel for the
applicant has also cited the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of M.P.
in the case of Anand Swaroop Singh vs. Union of India & others ,
2012 SCC OnLine MP 8415 and has prayed that the relief may be
granted to the applicant.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the pleadings and the documents available on record.

6. It is a settled law that an employee can withdraw his/her
application for voluntary retirement before the effective date and the
effective date would necessarily be the date on which the retirement
2026.10.16
16:58:08
+05'30'
ANAND
PRAKASH
Page 4 of 6
DUBEY

5
takes effect. In the case of Anand Swaroop Singh Vs. UOI & Ors
(Supra) , the Hon’ble High Court of M.P has held as under:
“The only grievance of the petitioner is that he made an
application for voluntary retirement on 15th August, 2011,
which application was pending consideration before the
respondents when he applied for grant of leave for the
purposes of treatment of his ailing wife, which was granted
and after availing of leave he joined the duties. However, all of
a sudden, the petitioner was served with an order of voluntary
retirement issued on 09.11.2011. On receipt of the said order,
the petitioner made an application for cancellation of the same,
virtually demanding withdrawal of his notice of voluntary
retirement on 12.11.2011. Though the voluntary retirement
was to be given effect on 15.11.2011 and such a notice was
already withdrawn much before the aforesaid date, yet the
petitioner was not allowed to join back the duties, therefore, he
made representation on 07.12.2011 and has come to this Court
thereafter challenging the action of the respondents in
voluntary retiring the petitioner.
xxx xxx xxx
5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and
considered the law laid-down by the Apex Court. It is settled
position of law that the voluntary retirement, if was not given
effect to, could have been withdrawn as was demanded by the
employee concerned. If a prayer is made much before the date
on which the notice of voluntary retirement was to be given
effect to, the same was to be considered and the order
accepting the voluntary retirement notice could have been
recalled if the effective date had not reached. In view of this
position of law, it was not proper on the part of the
respondents to insist that since they had passed the order of
voluntary retirement of the petitioner, he cannot be allowed to
withdraw the notice of voluntary retirement…..”

7. In the present case also, the applicant had made an
application on 12.01.2015 for withdrawal of his application for
voluntary retirement prior to 28.02.2015, i.e. the effective date on
2026.10.16
16:58:08
+05'30'
ANAND
PRAKASH
Page 5 of 6
DUBEY

6
which the notice period came to an end. The fact regarding receipt of
the application for withdrawal has also been accepted by the
respondents in their reply and they have contended that it was
received in their office before 28.02.2015. Thus, even though the
request of the applicant for voluntary retirement had been accepted,
the applicant was well within his right to withdraw in the light of the
judgment cited above and the law laid down in the cases of Balram
Gupta (supra) and J.N. Shrivastava (supra).
8. In view of the aforesaid, this Original Application No.
175/2015 is allowed . The order dated 24.02.2015 (Annexure A-1) is
quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the
intervening period as ‘on duty’ and allow all consequential benefits
including post retiral benefits.
9. All associated Misc. Applications stand disposed off.
10. No order as to costs.

(Smt. Mallika Arya) (Rajinder Singh Dogra)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Anand…


2026.10.16
16:58:08
+05'30'
ANAND
PRAKASH
Page 6 of 6
DUBEY