Withdrawal of voluntary retirement notice must strictly adhere to the statutory fifteen-day prior notice requirement.

The applicant, an Assistant Director in the Ministry of Labour & Employment, submitted a notice for Voluntary Retirement (VRS) on March 18, 2024

Following clarification, she set the intended date of retirement as July 1, 2024

On June 27, 2024—three days before the effective date—she sought to withdraw her VRS request due to financial reasons

The respondents proceeded to relieve her on July 1, 2024, and subsequently rejected her withdrawal request on July 10, 2024

The rejection was based on the proviso to Rule 43(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, which requires withdrawal requests to be made at least 15 days prior to the intended retirement date

1. Whether the proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 43 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, requiring withdrawal 15 days prior to the intended date, is valid and applicable to this case.

2. Whether the respondents were justified in applying the 2021 Rules when initial correspondence between the parties erroneously referred to the repealed Rule 48A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

The court primarily applied Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, which stipulates that a notice of voluntary retirement requires acceptance by the appointing authority and includes a proviso under sub-rule (6) mandating that withdrawal requests must be made no less than fifteen days before the intended date of retirement

The court noted that the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, stood repealed and replaced by the 2021 Rules

It distinguished the precedents of Balram Gupta v. Union of India and J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India, noting those decisions were rendered in the absence of a specific statutory timeline for withdrawal

The Tribunal held that voluntary retirement is strictly governed by statutory rules, and upon the commencement of the 2021 Rules, Rule 43 occupied the field.

Since the applicant submitted her withdrawal on June 27, 2024, for a retirement effective July 1, 2024, she failed to meet the mandatory 15-day statutory cut-off.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's claim of arbitrariness, stating that the 15-day restriction serves a legitimate administrative purpose for manpower planning and prevents last-minute disruptions, thus satisfying the test of reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Regarding the reference to the 1972 Rules, the Tribunal clarified that the law in force at the time the right is exercised (2024) prevails, and a mere clerical error in correspondence mentioning a repealed rule does not create a vested right or override current statutes.

The court answered both issues in the affirmative for the respondents: the 15-day proviso is valid and binding, and the application of the 2021 Rules was legally sustainable despite the initial mention of the 1972 Rules.

No costs were awarded.