JUDGMENT

Harnesh Singh Gill, J. (Oral)

Challenge in the present petition to the order dated 30.07.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.3, vide which the petitioner had been relieved from the duties without taking into consideration his application dated 18.07.2018 (Annexure P-2) to revoke the notice for voluntary retirement.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that initially, the petitioner was appointed as an Instructor in February, 1984 and thereafter, was promoted to the post of Vice-Principal in 2001. She further contends that on 25.04.2018, the petitioner, vide application dated 25.04.2018 (Annexure P-1), requested for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.07.2018 for the reason that he had undergone heart-surgery from Fortis Hospital, Mohali, and was not in a position to cope up with the duties. However, during the intervening period, the petitioner became recuperated and had submitted an application 18.07.2018 (Annexure P-2) seeking withdrawal of voluntary retirement notice and expressed his willingness to serve the institution for the remaining period upto the date of his superannuation. She further contends that the petitioner had moved the application dated 18.07.2018 i.e. prior to the intended date of his voluntary retirement. She further contends that without considering the application (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner, the impugned order (Annexure P-4) was passed by respondent No.3, whereby he had been relieved off the service w.e.f. 31.07.2018. In support of her contentions, learned counsel relies upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in `Union of India and others v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and others', 2019(1) S.C.T. 675.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel, while rebutting the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was accepted by the competent authority, vide impugned order dated 30.07.2018 (Annexure P-4), while taking into consideration that he was not in a good health. She further submits that the petitioner had withdrawn the retiral benefits and is now getting the pension. In support of her contentions, learned State counsel relies upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ` Director General, E.S.I.C. v. Puroshottam Malani ' , 2008(3) KLT 613 , wherein it was held that if the incumbent does not provide any reason or material for revoking his notice of voluntary retirement, then it is always open to the authority to decline the request for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. It is not disputed that vide application dated 25.04.2018, the petitioner had requested for voluntary retirement on account of the fact that he was not keeping good health and had undergone heart surgery from the Fortis Hospital, Mohali. However, the petitioner moved an application dated 18.07.2018 (Annexure P-2) to revoke his application/notice for voluntary retirement on the ground that he had recuperated from illness and was in a position to cope up with his job profile. The aforesaid material change in circumstances had not been considered by the competent authority while passing the impugned order.

6. It is worth mentioning here that the stipulated date for accepting the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was 31.07.2018. However vide order dated 30.07.2018 (Annexure P-4), the concerned authority without considering the application dated 18.07.2018 (Annexure P-2) moved by the petitioner for revoking the application/notice for voluntary retirement, had relieved the petitioner of the service w.e.f. 31.07.2018.

7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the competent authority could not have refused to accept the withdrawal of resignation of the petitioner as it was sent before the relationship of employee and employer, came to an end. A certain amount of flexibility is required in such cases