$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 23.03.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 15.04.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 15.04.2026 + W.P.(C) 3029/2026, CM APPL. 14577/2026, CM APPL.

14578/2026, CM APPL. 18109/2026 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC along with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr.

Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.

versus DHEER SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ankit Mehta, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. Through the present Petition, the Petitioners pray for quashing of the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟] in O.A. No. 4796/2024 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the said Original Application filed by the Respondent, set aside the Office Order dated 03.05.2024 issued by the Petitioners accepting the Respondent‟s request for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 08.05.2024, and has further directed reinstatement of the Respondent in service with all consequential benefits, including continuity of service, arrears of salary and other attendant benefits.

2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Respondent was entitled in law to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement after the same had already been accepted by the competent authority merely two days prior to the intended date of retirement, in the face of the express stipulation contained in Rule 43(6) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 mandating that any request for withdrawal of voluntary retirement must be made not less than fifteen days before the intended date of retirement.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

4. The Respondent was initially appointed on 06.05.1987 to the post of Masalchi (cook) in Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital, which is under the administrative control of the Government of NCT of Delhi, and continued in service for several decades. It is not in dispute that, pursuant to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the Respondent was promoted to the post of Head Cook vide Office Order dated 21.09.2017.

5. On 09.02.2024, the Respondent submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement from service under the applicable provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, [hereinafter referred to as the „CCS Rules‟]. The aforesaid request for voluntary retirement was processed by the competent authority and came to be accepted vide Office Order dated 03.05.2024, whereby the Respondent was permitted to voluntarily retire from service with effect from 08.05.2024 (afternoon).

6. It is also not in dispute that subsequent to the acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement, the Respondent submitted a representation dated 06.05.2024 seeking withdrawal of his earlier request and praying that he be permitted to continue in service. The said request for withdrawal was not acceded to by the Petitioners, and consequently, the Respondent stood voluntarily retired from service with effect from 08.05.2024 in terms of the Office Order dated

03.05.2024.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Respondent approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 4796/2024 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, inter alia, seeking setting aside of the Office Order dated 03.05.2024, reinstatement in service with consequential benefits, including back wages, and other ancillary reliefs.

8. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and placing reliance upon the decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Balram Gupta v. Union of India, (1987) Supp SCC 228, J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India, (1998) 9 SCC 559 and Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Pro