The provision restricting withdrawal of voluntary retirement applications post-acceptance is arbitrary and violates Article 14, as it denies employees the right to reconsider their decision before the effective date.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to assail constitutional validity of a part of provision contained in Sub-Rule (4), including proviso thereof, of Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension Rules), 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1996’).

2. Relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved in this petition are that the petitioner, while working on the post of Lab Boy in the Elementary Education department, State of Rajasthan and working in “Rajkiya Maharani Balika Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalaya”, Bikaner, driven by certain circumstances leading to suicide of his son, submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement from service invoking the provisions contained in Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 in the month of October, 2022. Vide order dated 14.11.2022, the application for voluntary retirement was allowed by stating that voluntary retirement shall take effect from 01.02.2023.

3. After few days thereafter, the petitioner changed his mind and then submitted an application on 07.12.2022 seeking to withdraw the application for voluntary retirement. The application, however, came to be rejected vide communication dated 13.12.2022 in view of the provisions contained in the Rules as the Rules provide that once the request of a government servant for voluntary retirement has been accepted and communicated to him in writing by the appointing authority, it shall not be open to the government servant to withdraw the request for voluntary retirement. The petitioner has now challenged the validity of the provision itself.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued in extenso before us and contended that the provision under challenge suffers from manifest arbitrariness, unreasonableness and irrationality inasmuch as that such a prescription contained in the Rules restricting the liberty to withdraw the application for voluntary retirement after acceptance, is against the law consistently laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several judicial pronouncements that an application for voluntary retirement could be withdrawn any time before it becomes effective. He would submit that the provision has been added by way of amendment in the year 2016 vide notification dated 14.01.2016, which is against the settled principles of law.

4.1 Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a provision for voluntary retirement is essentially at the initiation of a government servant and, therefore, until it becomes effective, there is no reason why he should not be allowed to withdraw the said application before it becomes effective and any restriction on exercise of this option before it becomes effective is destructive of the main provision providing for three months of notice for voluntary retirement. He would further submit that present is not a case where the petitioner had invoked preponement clause so as to say that he was determined to give up employment for his own personal reasons and the order of acceptance was passed on or after the preponed date of voluntary retirement. It is further submitted that the objective behind such provision is to allow a government servant to reflect upon a decision taken to quit from service. Undue restriction without any objective or rationality renders the provision violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decisions in the cases of Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India & Anr. [1987 (Supp) SCC 228], Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2017) 9 SCC 1], Union of India & Anr. Vs. Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy [2001 (1) SCC 158], Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2024 (5) SCC 1], Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India [AIR 1969 SC 180], State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni & Ors. [1981 (4) SCC 130], Punjab National Bank Vs. P.K. Mittal [1989 Supp