ORDER

Shrivastava, J. -- 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.12.2020 whereby the petitioner’s application for voluntary retirement has been accepted. The petitioner is also aggrieved with the order dated 9.12.2020 whereby his application for withdrawal of the application for voluntary retirement has been rejected.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as Dy. Registrar (M) and had submitted the application dated 11.9.2020 under prescribed Form No.28 for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.12.2020 under Rule 42 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short ‘the Pension Rules’). After filing the application, the petitioner realized that he is in need of continuation of his employment, therefore, he had filed the application dated 12.10.2020 requesting for withdrawal of his earlier application dated 11.9.2020 for voluntary retirement and also seeking permission to continue in service up to the age of superannuation. Further case of the petitioner is that till the submission of the application dated 12.10.2020, no decision was taken on the petitioner’s earlier application dated 11.9.2020. By the impugned order, the petitioner’s application for withdrawal of application for voluntary retirement has been rejected and the petitioner’s application for voluntary retirement has been accepted and he has been retired w.e.f. 31.12.2020 afternoon.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted the application for withdrawal of the application for voluntary retirement before the acceptance of the application for voluntary retirement, therefore, the respondents are not justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application for withdrawal of the application and accepting the application for voluntary retirement. He also submits that no D.E. is pending and he has a good record, which is reflected from his promotion as Assistant Registrar on 3.8.2019. He also submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Balram Gupta v. Union of India and another, reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 228, the petitioner has the absolute right to withdraw the application for voluntary retirement before its acceptance. He has further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Director General, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and another v. Puroshottam Malani, reported in (2007) 1 MPHT 173 (DB) in support of his submission that the opportunity should have been given to the petitioner before rejection of the application for withdrawal.

4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in terms of the Pension Rules, the petitioner has no absolute right of withdrawal of application for voluntary retirement and justifiable reason exists for rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for withdrawal of the application for voluntary retirement. He further submits that the Rule which has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Balram Gupta (supra), is differently worded, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the said judgment.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Rule 42 of the Pension Rules, which is relevant for the present controversy reads as under :

“42. Retirement on completion of [20/25 years] qualifying service. - [(1) (a) Government servant may retire at any time after completing 20 years qualifying service, by giving a notice in form 28 to the appointing authority at least one month before the date on which he wishes to retire or on payment by him of pay and allowances for the period of one month or for the period by which the notice actually given by him falls short of one month :

Provided that this sub-rule shall not apply to the Government servants mentioned in brackets against each of the following Department, until they have not completed 25 years qualif