An employee can withdraw a voluntary retirement application before the effective date of retirement, as affirmed by the Court, ensuring that rights under Article 21 are protected; engaging in post-retirement work does not negate this right.

ORDER :

1. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed this writ petition calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 24-2-2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur) in Original Application No.319/2017, by which his original application has been dismissed by the learned CAT holding that his application for withdrawal of voluntary retirement from service has rightly been rejected by the respondents.

2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop.

3. The petitioner herein, the then Chief Station Manager at Railway Station Dagori, submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement from service (VRS) for his personal reasons on 17-2-2016 (Annexure P-2) to the competent authority. However, he has clarified his application by memo dated 22-3-2016 (Annexure P-3) that his VRS be considered after two months from the grant of 7^th Pay Commission benefits. Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner that he has submitted an application seeking withdrawal of his VRS request on 12-5-2016 (Annexure P-4) which was received by the respondents on 16-5-2016 and on the same day, the competent authority accepted his VRS with effect from 16-5-2016 and issued order Annexure P-5 retiring him from service, which was received by him on 18-5-2016. Against the order granting VRS dated 16-5-2016, he preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 19-5- 2016 vide Annexure P-6 and ultimately, his appeal was rejected on 5-1-2017 vide Annexure P-9 citing that he had already applied and accepted for engagement as ATVM (Automatic Ticket Vending Machine) facilitator at Bhatapara Railway Station. Questioning that order, the petitioner preferred an original application as indicated above, which was dismissed by the learned CAT by the impugned order dated 24-2-2025 (Annexure P-1) leading to filing of this writ petition. The learned CAT has held that the petitioner has not been able to show that there is any valid reason for withdrawal of his request for VRS nor he has indicated any change in circumstances and consequently declined to entertain the original application.

4. The respondents herein/Union of India has taken a stand that the petitioner’s VRS was accepted on 16-5-2016 by the competent authority and after acceptance of VRS, letter dated 12-5-2016 was received in the Office of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer on 16-5-2016 and even it was not addressed to the competent authority and further, voluntary retirement of the petitioner had already been accepted by the respondents in accordance with Rule 67 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1993’) and the order of the competent authority granting VRS to the petitioner with effect 16-5-2016 was already circulated on 16-5-2016 itself to all concerned including the petitioner herein. The petitioner had also taken the benefit to be engaged as ATVM facilitator vide his application dated 16-5-2016 treating himself to be a retired employee. It is also the case of the respondents that memo dated 18-5-2012 (Annexure R-4) of the Government of India (Bharat Sarkar), Ministry of Railways (Rail Mantralaya) (Railway Board) states that only retired Railway employees of any department should be employed as facilitators and the maximum age limit for appointment of such facil