JUDGMENT - H.W. DHABE, J.:---Parties by Counsel. Rule. Heard forthwith.

1. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the orders of the learned District and

Sessions Judge, Akola i.e. the respondent No. 1 dated 1-9-1992 and 1-10-1992 refusing him permission to withdraw his notice of retirement dated 31-7-1992. He has also challenged in this writ petition the validity of Rule 66(5) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short, the Pension Rules) applicable to the Government Servants.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Section Writer in the District Court, Akola on 5-7-1970 and was promoted thereafter as Clerk-cum-Steno on 1-8-1976. According to him, he had completed 20 years of service when he gave the notice of voluntary retirement dated 31-7-1992 in accordance with Rule 66(1) of the Pension Rules which provides that at any time after a Government servant has completed 20 years qualifying service, he can by giving a notice of three months in writing to the Appointing Authority, retire from service. The said notice of retirement was accepted by the respondent No. 1 on 10-8-1992 with effect from 31-10-1992 i.e. the date on which the period of three months from the date of his notice of voluntary retirement dated 31-7-1992 would expire. The petitioner thereafter by his application dated 25-8-1992 applied for withdrawal of his notice of voluntary retirement dated 31-7-1992.

3. The learned District Judge, however, refused as per his order dated 1-9-92, to grant approval to his aforesaid application dated 25-8-1992 for withdrawal of his notice of retirement date 31-7-1992, principally because he found that the above application of the petitioner dated 25-8-1992 was a conditional one. The petitioner thereafter made an application on 25-9-1992 stating therein that he would unconditionally withdraw his notice of retirement dated 31-7-1992. The learned District Judge by his order dated 1-10-1992 rejected the said application for the reasons given by him in his earlier order dated 1-9-1992 and also because of the contents of the notice of voluntary retirement dated 31-7-1992 given by the petitioner as well as the contents of his application dated 25-9-1992 for unconditional withdrawal of his notice of voluntary retirement dated 31-7-1992.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court. Although, initially, there was a proposal and the petitioner had agreed to accept the lower post, since a proper lower post could not be found for him, the matter could not be settled and is, therefore, heard and disposed of on merits.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that no valid reason is given by the learned District Judge in rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 25-9-1992 seeking to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement unconditionally. His submission in this regard is that under sub-rule (5) of Rule 66 of the Pension Rules which requires specific approval of the competent authority for withdrawing the notice of retirement given by the Government servant, proper and valid reasons are necessary to be given by the competent authority for not permitting the Government servant to withdraw the notice of voluntary retirement given by him. The submission thus is that in the absence of any valid reasons for declining approval, the learned District Judge was bound to grant permission to the petitioner to withdraw his notice of retirement unconditionally. Another contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is about the validity of sub-rule (5) of Rule 66 of the Pension Rules. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the above contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.

6. As regards the contention about the validity of sub-rule (5) of Rule 66 of the Pension Rules, the submission on behalf of the petitioner is that there are no guidelines laid down in the said Rule for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document