An employee has the right to withdraw an application for voluntary retirement prior to its acceptance by the employer, as per established legal principles.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner, in this writ petition, prays for quashing the Notification as contained in Memo No. 509 dated 07.05.2014 (Annexure 5), whereby it has been notified that the petitioner’s application for voluntary retirement has been accepted and he stands voluntarily retired from service from the date of issuance of the notification. Further, by way of amendment, prayer has been made to quash Memo No. 873 dated 04.08.2014 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition), by which petitioner’s request for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement has been rejected.

2. The facts lie in a very narrow compass. Petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer on the basis of recommendation of Bihar Public Service Commission. He was posted in Muzaffarpur vide Notification dated 09.02.1998. After bifurcation of the State of Jharkhand, petitioner was allotted Jharkhand Cadre. The petitioner, on 15.01.2013, applied for voluntary retirement, which was forwarded by the Deputy Superintendent, Sub Divisional Officer, Madhupur. His request for voluntary retirement was kept pending as no information was given to him on his application. Again on 07.09.2013, petitioner made another request to grant approval for his voluntary retirement. He received no information from the employer. Ultimately, on 09.04.2014, petitioner sent a communication indicating that he is withdrawing his request, which he had made earlier to opt voluntary retirement. The said letter was received by the Principal Secretary to the Government on 11.04.2014. On 07.05.2014, the first impugned notification was issued, voluntarily retiring the petitioner from service with effect from the date of said notification, i.e., 07.05.2014. His application for withdrawal of voluntary retirement was also rejected by communication dated 04.08.2014 (Annexure 11).

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has withdrawn his application for voluntary retirement prior to the impugned notification dated 07.05.2014, thus, in view of the well settled principle of law, his application seeking voluntary retirement should have been treated as withdrawn. The respondents, ignoring the principle of law, has passed the impugned order, which needs to be set aside.

4. Counsel for the respondents, by referring to the Counter affidavit, submitted that the Minister had already approved the application for voluntary retirement of the petitioner on 26.03.2014, thus, it cannot be said that his withdrawal was prior to such approval. That being the factual position, petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.

5. After hearing the parties, I find that the facts are undisputed. Petitioner applied for voluntary retirement on 15.01.2013 and withdrew the same vide his application on 09.04.2014, which was received by the department on 11.04.2014. As per the counter affidavit, the Minister-in-Charge had approved allowing his voluntary retirement on 26.03.2014 and the impugned notification is dated 07.05.2014.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy, (2001) 1 SCC 158, at paragraph 6 thereof, considering the earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India versus Gopal Chandra Mishra, especially at paragraph 50, has held that resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective and it becomes effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office tenure of the re-signer. It has been further held that normally, the tender of resignation becomes effective and the service/or office tenure terminated when it is accepted by the competent authority.

7. In the instant case, the application for voluntary retirement was submitted by the petitioner on 15.01.2013 and withdrew the same vide his application on 09.04.2014, which was received by the department on 11.04.2014. Further, though the Minister-in-Charge has approved request for voluntary retirement of the petitioner on 26.03.2014, but the same cannot be said to be