The central legal point established in the judgment is that an employee seeking to withdraw a voluntary retirement request must provide valid reasons, and the employer must consider such reasons before rejecting the withdrawal request.

Govind Mathur, J.-The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur by its order dated 23.05.2000 rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner giving challenge the order dated 05.05.1999 passed by the Chief Town Planner, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for withdrawal of his request for voluntary retirement from service.

2. The facts necessary for adjudication of present writ petition are stated in succeeding paras.

3. The petitioner while working as Office Assistant in the office of Senior Town Planner. Bikaner submitted an application dated 17.03.1999 to the Chief Town Planner. Government of Rajasthan through proper channel seeking voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 08.05.1999. The petitioner on 02.04.1999 by an another application made a request to the Chief Town Planner to treat his request for voluntary retirement under the application dated 17.03.1999 cancelled. The Chief Town Planner without considering the application submitted by the petitioner on 02.04.1999 passed an order dated 15.04.1999 accepting the request of the petitioner to proceed for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 08.05.1999. On receiving the order dated 15.04.1999, the petitioner immediately submitted a representation to the Chief Town Planner, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur to reconsider the decision communicated under office order dated 15.04.1999 in view of application dated 02.04.1999 whereby a request was made to treat the application dated 17.03.1999 cancelled. By communication dated 05.05.1999 the Senior Town Planner (Headquarters) Rajasthan communicated to the Senior Town Planner, Bikaner Zone, Bikaner that no reason exists to accept the application dated 02.04.1999 submitted by the petitioner for withdrawal of his request to proceed on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 08.05.1999. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matter) Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. The Tribunal by its order dated 23.05.2000 rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the count that the petitioner failed to give reason sufficient to withdraw the request made by him seeking voluntary retirement.

4. By instant petition validity of the order dated 23.05.2000 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur and the orders dated 05.05.1999 and 15.04.1999 passed by the Respondents No. 3 and 2 respectively is required to be examined.

5. No reply to the writ petition has been filed though this Court on 20.01.2003 ordered for final hearing of the writ petition at admission stage in second week of February, 2003.

6. I have heard Counsel for the parties.

7. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents without any sufficient cause declined for grant of approval to the notice for withdrawal of request for voluntary retirement. The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that in view of law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Balram Gupta v. Union of India & Anr., reported in AIR 1987 SC 2354, it was obligatory for employer to provide reason for not granting such approval.

8. Per contra, it is contended by the Counsel for the respondents that under Rule 50 (4) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1996, a Government servant, who has elected to voluntarily retied and has given necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with specific approval of such authority. The Government of Rajasthan under its decision made it clear that a Government servant, who has given notice to proceed on voluntary retirement is having no right to withdraw such notice in normal course. He is required to give specific reasons.

9. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 and the decision on basis of which the res