Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Del) 813

2025:DHC:923
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ, TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
Sanjay Kaushik – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Another – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 11546 of 2019
Decided On : 10-02-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : Aditya Kaushik
For the Respondents : Shagun S. Chugh, Utsav Mangotra

Advocates:
Mr. Aditya Kaushik, Advocate; Ms. Shagun S. Chugh, SPC with Mr. Utsav Mangotra, Advocate

An employee cannot withdraw a request for voluntary retirement once it has been accepted and becomes effective, as per the Pension Rules.

Headnote:
(A) Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 48-A and Rule 88 - Voluntary retirement - Petitioner's request for withdrawal of voluntary retirement rejected as it was submitted post-retirement - Court held that withdrawal must occur before the effective date of retirement, reaffirming that acceptance of voluntary retirement is final once effective. (Paras 11, 14, 15)

(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that the exercise of discretionary powers under Rule 88 does not create a right for similar treatment, and each case must be evaluated on its own merits. (Paras 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, after being promoted and transferred, requested voluntary retirement due to personal circumstances, which was accepted. He later sought to withdraw this request after retirement, which was denied.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had no authority to withdraw his voluntary retirement after it became effective, and the rejection of his request was justified.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner could withdraw his voluntary retirement after it became effective and the applicability of Rule 88 in his case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that once voluntary retirement is accepted and effective, withdrawal is not permissible, and the discretionary power under Rule 88 does not guarantee equal treatment for all employees.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for setting aside the impugned order dated 04.10.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (for short CAT) dismissing the O.A. No. 2947/2019 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.07.2019 passed by Respondent no.1, whereby the petitioner’s request for withdrawal of voluntary retirement was rejected. Petitioner also seeks direction to the Respondents to accept the Petitioner's request for withdrawal of voluntary retirement and to reinstate the Petitioner.

2. As per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner had joined as an Assistant in Delhi Administration on 21.07.1980. In the month of June, 2011, the petitioner was promoted to the Entry Grade of DANICS and was transferred to Andaman & Nicobar Islands by the Ministry of Home Affairs (hereinafter referred to as “MHA”) and was relieved in February, 2012. Petitioner claims that due to serious medical condition of his mother, the petitioner remained on leave in Delhi between 16.10.2012 and 03.12.2012. Petitioner also claims that while at Port Blair, he was informed about an immediate and emergent surgery of his mother at Delhi. Pursuant to the said news, the petitioner claims to be depressed and in utter confusion about his next move and requested for voluntary retirement on 12.12.2012 with effect from 13.03.2013. Simultaneously, the petitioner also sought transfer to Delhi so as to ensure that all his post retiral benefits could be easily accessible and availed of in the city of Delhi, of which he was an ordinary resident. On 08.03.2013, the petitioner also submitted an undertaking and an affidavit reiterating his request for voluntary retirement to be effective from 18.03.2013 as a condition precedent for his transfer to Delhi. On 11.03.2013, the petitioner was transferred to Delhi and after acceptance of his resignation by the Competent Authority, the voluntary retirement was made effective from 18.03.2013.

3. After a passage of almost two weeks, the petitioner by the letter dated 01.04.2013 sought permission to withdraw the request for voluntary retirement under certain circumstances. This request was rejected on 04.06.2013 by respondent no.1. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a review representation which too was dismissed on 17.04.2015. The petitioner challenged the said rejection on 06.11.2015 by filing OA No.4219/2015 before the learned CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The said OA was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 25.04.2019. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.6040/2019 which was disposed of by the order dated 28.05.2019 by this Court directing respondent no.1 to consider the petitioner’s case for grant of relaxation under Rule 88 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short Pension Rules) on its own merits. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.06.2019 which too was rejected by respondent no.1 on 31.07.2019. Though the petitioner had preferred an application against the said order dated 31.07.2019 in WP(C) No.6040/2019, this Court had directed the petitioner to agitate the same before the learned CAT as it would constitute a new cause of action. Following the said directions, the petitioner preferred OA No.2947/2019 before the learned CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi assailing the order dated 31.07.2019 passed by respondent no.1.

4. By the impugned order dated 04.10.2019, the learned CAT had dismissed OA No.2947/2019 on the ground that it was unmerited. The said impugned order is challenged before us in the present writ petition.

5. Mr. Aditya Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the directions passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6040/2019 vide order dated 28.05.2019 has not been complied with in letter and spirit. According to learned counsel, the order dated 31.07.2019 of respondent no.1 is bereft of any reasons; does not deal with Rul