Statutory fifteen-day notice period for withdrawing voluntary retirement is mandatory and admits no relaxation.

The Respondent, initially appointed as a Masalchi (cook) in 1987 and later promoted to Head Cook, submitted an application for voluntary retirement (VRS) on February 9, 2024, under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021

The competent authority accepted this request on May 3, 2024, with the retirement effective from the afternoon of May 8, 2024

On May 6, 2024—merely two days before the effective date—the Respondent submitted a representation to withdraw his VRS request, citing "illness"

The Petitioners refused the withdrawal and retired the Respondent on the scheduled date

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) subsequently allowed the Respondent's Original Application, setting aside the retirement and ordering reinstatement with consequential benefits, relying on the principle that an employee can withdraw VRS before the effective date

The Petitioners challenged the CAT’s order before the Delhi High Court

1. Whether a government servant is entitled to withdraw a request for voluntary retirement after its acceptance when the withdrawal request is made less than fifteen days before the intended date of retirement, in violation of Rule 43(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021

2. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in applying general principles of locus poenitentiae over the specific mandatory proviso of the CCS (Pension) Rules

The court primarily applied Rule 43(6) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, which stipulates that a government servant is precluded from withdrawing a retirement election without specific approval and mandates that such a request must be made at least fifteen days prior to the intended retirement date

It interpreted the term "shall" in the proviso as mandatory

The court also distinguished the precedents of Balram Gupta v. Union of India [para. 29], J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India [para. 30], and Birender Singh Ex DC v. Union of India, noting that these cases either involved compliance with statutory timelines or lacked the specific fifteen-day mandatory bar present in the current rules

The court held that the right to withdraw a VRS request is not absolute but is strictly circumscribed by the conditions in Rule 43(6)

Since the Respondent submitted his withdrawal request on May 6, 2024, for a retirement effective May 8, 2024, he failed to meet the mandatory fifteen-day notice period prescribed by the proviso to the Rule

The court observed that the Respondent's application was vague, unsubstantiated by medical records, and lacked any demonstrable "change in circumstances" that would justify a withdrawal after the request had already been accepted

Furthermore, the court noted inconsistencies in the Respondent’s claims, as allegations of "pressure" from hospital staff were only introduced during the CAT proceedings and were absent from the initial withdrawal letter

The court concluded that the CAT committed a jurisdictional error by effectively rewriting the statutory rule and rendering the fifteen-day proviso nugatory

It held that the Respondent’s request for withdrawal was legally unsustainable due to non-compliance with the mandatory timeframe under Rule 43(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules

The court upheld the Office Order dated May 3, 2024, confirming that the Respondent stands validly retired as of May 8, 2024, and is entitled only to such retiral benefits as are admissible under the law