http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: BALBIR SINGH NEGI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/03/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (4)   126        1996 SCALE  (3)338

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The SLP  is filed  against the  order  of  the  Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Circuit at Shimla made on  17.11.1995 in  O.A. No.758/HP/91.  The  petitioner, admittedly, after  completing his  33  years  of  qualifying service submitted,  on February 18, 1991, an application for voluntary retirement  under Section  48A  of  Pension  Rules which came  to be  accepted on  May 2,  1991 w.e.f. June 30, 1991 as  requested by  him. After the receipt of this letter and acceptance  on the even date, namely, May 2, 1991 and of another letter dated May 23, 1991, he sought to withdraw his application for  voluntary retirement which he had submitted but was  not accepted  by the  authorities.  Thereafter,  he filed O.A. in the Tribunal contending that he is entitled to withdraw his  application before  the relationship of master and  servant   becomes  operative,   i.e.,  July   1,  1991. Acceptance  of  his  resignation  before  that  date,  i.e., 30.6.1991 is  not valid  in law.  Under  Rule  48-A  of  the Pension  Rules,  a  Government  servant,  on  completion  of required period  of service,  is entitled  to make a request for  voluntary  retirement.  Admittedly,  that  request  was acceded to and resignation was accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner  sought to  rely upon  the judgment  of  this Court in  Balram Gupta  vs. Union of India [(1987) Supp. SCC 228] in  which this  Court held  that a  Government  servant after making application but before it becomes effective and relationship of  master and  the servant  ceases operate, is entitled to  withdraw the  resignation. that  case,  on  the facts and circumstances, it was held that he was pressurized in the  first instance  to voluntary  retire. With a view to get it  over he  had submitted his application for voluntary retirement. Subsequently,  he reconciled. The entitlement to withdraw  the   application  for  voluntary  retirement  was accepted by  this Court.  It is  seen  that  in  this  case, admittedly, the  petitioner has  stated that he was on leave for  one  year  prior  to  the  date  of  seeking  voluntary

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

retirement on medical grounds and he was unable to discharge the duties and that, therefore, he had sought to voluntarily retire from  service. It  would  appear  that  when  he  was transferred from  Shimla to  Faridabad, he had submitted his application in  a huff  for voluntary  retirement  and  that thereafter  he   came  forward   with  the  application  for withdrawal. It  is true  that the petitioner was entitled to withdraw the  resignation. But  in view  of the fact that he has  already   attained   the   superannuation   in   normal circumstances on  February 28,  1994, no useful purpose will be served  by giving direction to permit him to withdraw his application.      Under these circumstances, the petition is dismissed.