The University's refusal to allow the petitioner to withdraw his voluntary retirement application was arbitrary and unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner was employed in the Osmania University with effect from 27-9-1949. He was promoted as Assistant Registrar and later as Deputy Registrar on 8-4-1980. He was confirmed as Deputy Registrar on 21-5-1982. According to the conditions of service, he was due to retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years, on 31-7-1988 (His date of oirth being 26-7-1930). On 19-6-1986, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Registrar of the University, which is extracted below.

“I may kindly be permitted to retire from the University Service with effect from 1-10-1986, treating this as three months notice with effect from 1-7-1986, as per the contract.”

2. The Deputy Registrar (Administration) informed the petitioner that the Vice Chancellor had accorded permission to the petitioner to retire voluntarily from the University Service with effect from 1-10-1986. On 30-8-1986, the petitioner addressed another letter to the Registrar, withdrawing his earlier letter dt. 19-6-1986, seeking voluntary retirement. The petitioner pointed out in the letter dated 30-8-1986 that after he sought permission to voluntarily retire from service through letter dated 19-6-1986, revision of pay scales were announced by the Government, to be implemented with effect from 1st July 1986. The petitioner calculated the pension that would be payable to him according to the revised scales and found that he would suffer monthly loss of Rs. 414/- per month, if he retired voluntarily with effect from 1-10-1986. The petitioner gave the relevant particulars in the letter addressed. The petitioner observed that if he could put in seven more months of service in the revised pay scales, the loss would be compensated. He therefore requested the university to allow him to withdraw his earlier application for permission to retire from 1-10-1986. He proceeded to observe—”I assure you that I have no ambition to continue when once the loss is compensated.” It is not clear from the last mentioned observation, whether the petitioner was wanting only to work for 7 months more or he was holding out an assurance that as soon the loss is compensated he would retire from service. There was however no difficulty in that University understood the letter dated 30-8-1986 as one withdrawing the earlier application seeking permission to voluntarily retire from service with effect from 1-10-1986. On 22-9-1986, the University Syndicate met and it would appear that the petitioner's case was discussed in the syndicate meeting. The possibility is that the petitioner's original letter dt. 19-6-1986 and also the subsequent letter dt. 30-8-1986 withdrawing the letter seeking voluntary retirement, were placed before the syndicate and were duly considered. On 29-9-1986, the Registrar wrote to the petitioner as under.

“The University Syndicate at its 362nd meeting held on 22-9-86 has ratified the action taken by the Vice Chancellor in permitting Sri K.L. Mhaisekar, Deputy Registrar (Academic), Osmania University, to retire voluntarily from the University Service with effect from 1-10-1986.”

3. The petitioner was retired from service with effect from 1-10-1986. In the present Writ Petition filed on 30-3-1988 the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings of the Vice Chancellor dt. 15-7-1986 permitting him to retire from service, pursuant to his application with effect from 1-10-1986. The petitioner also seeks a consequential direction to the university to reinstate him into service treating him as on date from 1-10-86 till the date of reinstatement by creating a supernumerary post of Joint Registrar, if necessary.

4. A preliminary objection is raised by the learned counsel appearing for the university that this Writ Petition was filed belatedly. While the petitioner was retired from service on 1-10-1986, the Writ Petition was filed only on 30-3-1988. The learned counsel for the university therefore contended that the Writ Petition should be dismissed in limine, h