Voluntary retirement does not terminate employment until relieving order issued; withdrawal permissible beforehand as jural relationship subsists, irrespective of acceptance or inventories deposit.

JUDGMENT :

R. Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment 26.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1755 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the order dated 18.01.2023 rejecting the representation of the appellant for withdrawal from voluntarily retirement has been quashed and set aside.

3. The factual aspect of the case reveals that the writ petitioner (respondent no. 1 herein) was appointed to the post of Forest Produce Inspector (Range Officer) in the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation in the year 1987. After bifurcation of the State, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation was constituted in the State of Jharkhand and the services of the petitioner was transferred from the State of Bihar to the State of Jharkhand in Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation.

It has been stated that after 33 years of unblemished service, the petitioner had opted for voluntarily retirement before the respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 27.07.2020. The reason for making such option is the decision of the petitioner to contest elections from his native place at Bihar. The request of the petitioner was accepted by the concerned department vide order no. 42 dated 01.10.2020. Since the petitioner was not relieved from the duty and the employer – employee relationship still subsisting, the petitioner had made a representation dated 24.11.2020 seeking to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement with a further direction for reinstatement. Further representations followed, but since no action was taken by the concerned respondents, the petitioner was constrained to approach this court in W.P.(S) No. 2552 of 2022 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.07.2022 with a direction to the concerned respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the decision cited as also taking into account the legal opinion of the Advocate General and pass a speaking order. Since the said order was not complied with by the concerned respondents, the petitioner had preferred a contempt application being Contempt Case (Civil) No. 12 of 2023 and during the pendency of the contempt application, an order was passed on 18.01.2023 as contained in Memo No. 230 by which the prayer of the petitioner for withdrawal of his application for voluntarily retirement and consequent reinstatement in service has been refused. Being aggrieved with the order dated 18.01.2023, the petitioner had preferred another writ application being W.P.(S) No. 1755 of 2023 which was allowed vide order dated 26.09.2023 and which is the order impugned to the present appeal.

4. It has been submitted by Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant that once the request for voluntary retirement of the writ petitioner has been accepted, no scope remains for withdrawal of the said request. The writ petitioner has relinquished his charge on 06.10.2020 by way of submitting a list of inventories and he himself by such act terminated the jural relationship of employer and employee. Mr. Singh has submitted that the request for withdrawal of voluntary retirement was made beyond the statutory period of 90 days as envisaged under Rule 74 of the JHARKHAND SERVICE CODE and by efflux of time, the prayer of voluntary retirement as contained in letter dated 27.07.2020 has attained finality. It has been submitted that the second writ application leading to the impugned order camouflaging the prayer is not maintainable