A prospective voluntary retirement may be withdrawn before its effective date, even through a request for extension.

H.K. Meena, a Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Department officer, first sought voluntary retirement under Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, with effect from 31 July 2014.

On his request, the State extended the proposed retirement date to 31 October 2014.

On 29 October 2014, before that date, Meena sought a further extension, but the State rejected his request and ordered his voluntary retirement from the afternoon of 31 October 2014.

The Single Judge quashed the retirement order and directed reinstatement, while limiting specified service benefits for the intervening period.

Meena appealed seeking broader consequential benefits; the State appealed against the reinstatement direction, arguing that reinstatement had not been sought in the writ petition.

1. Whether Meena’s pre-effective-date request to extend the date of voluntary retirement could be treated as a withdrawal of his prospective retirement, so that the State could not retire him without considering that request.

2. Whether the Single Judge could direct reinstatement when Meena had not sought that relief in his writ petition.

3. Whether Meena was entitled to consequential service benefits for the period following the quashed retirement order.

Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 requires acceptance of a notice of voluntary retirement; under Rule 50(4), a request to withdraw the notice must be made before the intended retirement date and requires the appointing authority’s specific approval.

A prospective resignation or retirement may generally be withdrawn before it becomes effective, absent a legal, contractual or constitutional bar; the Court relied on Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra.

It also referred to Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam, Tek Chand v. Dile Ram and Ashok Kumar Sahu v. Union of India on voluntary retirement and the effect of the governing rules.

Relief not prayed for ordinarily cannot be granted: Bharat Amaratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi and Union Public Service Commission v. Naseer-Ud-Din Wani.

Meena’s 29 October request was made before the proposed retirement date and communicated that he did not wish to retire on the date previously fixed.

Although the Rules do not prescribe a procedure for extending a retirement date, the Court held that the request could not be disregarded merely because it was framed as an extension rather than expressly as a withdrawal.

Since the proposed retirement had not yet taken effect, the State’s order retiring Meena without considering that request was rightly set aside.

However, reinstatement was a distinct relief that Meena had not sought in his writ petition; applying the authorities on unclaimed relief, the Court held that the Single Judge should not have granted it.

Meena remained entitled to benefits, other than reinstatement, flowing from the quashing of the retirement order.

Both appeals were disposed of, with the parties bearing their own costs.