1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.       4611      OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 1551 of 2007)

Director General ESIC & Anr. .... Appellants

Versus

Puroshottam Malani .... Respondent

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2006 of the

High  Court  of  Madhya  Pradesh,  Bench  at Indore in  Writ  Petition(s)  No.  1028  of 2004

whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the

appellant  herein  and  affirmed  the  order  dated  13.01.2004  passed  by  the  Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, Circuit Bench, Indore in O.A. No. 1002/2000.  

3. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that

the respondent  herein  was working in  the appellant  organization  as Manager.   Since he

wanted to go on voluntary retirement, he tendered a three months' notice dated 31.12.1999

for voluntary retirement to retire him with effect from 31.3.2000.   The said  notice of the

respondent  for  relieving  him  on  voluntary  retirement  was  accepted  by  the  appellant

corporation on 10.2.2000.  However, on 22.3.2000, i.e., 10 days prior to the date of relieving

him, the respondent  sought  to withdraw his  notice of voluntary retirement  whereby the

respondent  had  sought  voluntary  retirement with effect from 31.3.2000.   The request  for

withdrawal of the notice for voluntary retirement was rejected by the appellant corporation

on 17.4.2000.  Aggrieved against the said order of rejection dated 17.4.2000, the respondent

2

herein  approached  the CAT, Jabalpur,  Circuit  Bench,  Indore.   The CAT vide  its  order

dated 13.01.2004 quashed and set aside the order dated 17.4.2000 of the appellant herein

and directed the appellant to treat the applicant-respondent to have continuously worked

till  the  date  of  actual  superannuation  and  granted  him all  arrears  of  salary  and  other

emoluments  including  increments and  to get his  pensionary benefits  refixed  accordingly.

Aggrieved against the said order of the CAT, the appellant filed a writ petition before the

High Court of Madhya Pradesh which was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order

and the order of the Tribunal was affirmed.  Hence the present appeal by special leave.

4. The Division Bench of the High Court with reference to sub-Rule (2) of Rule

48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension Rules, 1972)  held that the respondent has revoked

his resignation before the last date i.e. 31.3.2000.  Therefore, he should have been permitted

to withdraw the same and  the acceptance of retiral  benefits  including  pension,  gratuity,

leave encashment etc. ought to have been ignored.  Placing reliance on various decisions of

this Court including the cases of Union of India Vs.  Gopal Chandra Misra (1978) 2 SCC,

301,  Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India 1987 (Supp.) SCC, 228 and Punjab National Bank

Vs.  P.K.  Mittal 1989 (Supp.  2) SCC, 175, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition.

That is how  the appellant is before us.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.  It is

true  that  the  respondent  herein  has  tendered  the  notice  dated  31.12.1999  for  seeking

voluntary  retirement  with  effect  from  31.3.2000  and  his  request  was  accepted  by  the

appellant on 10.2.2000. But the respondent revoked his request for voluntary retirement by

letter dated 22.3.2000, i.e., prior to 31.3.2000.  In this appeal, the question that arises for our

consideration is whether after respondent's resignation has been accepted by the appellant

and the appellant has been given marching orders and  he has already withdrawn all  the

3

pensionary benefits including leave encashment, gratuity, commutation on 14.9.2000, is it

still open for him to agitate the matter.  The respondent herein filed an Original Application

before the Tribunal on 12.11.2000.  Can such conduct of the respondent be permitted.   

6. Rule 48(2) of the Central Civil Services (Pension)Rules, 1972 reads as under :-

"(2) A Government servant,  who has  elected to retire under  this

rule and has given the necessary intimation to that effect to the Appointing

Authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his election subsequently

except with the specific approval of such authority :

Provided that the request for withdrawal shall  be within the

intended date of his retirement."

7. In  the  present  case  also,  the  respondent  has  expressed  his  intention  for

withdrawing the notice of voluntary retirement prior to 31.3.2000 which was the last date

given by him.  Normally, there is no prohibition for the incumbent to revoke the notice of

voluntary retirement before the penultimate day but that can only be permitted to withdraw

the same with the specific approval  of the appointing  authority and secondly it has to be

done before the penultimate day.  In this case, the authorities have refused to withdraw the

notice  of  voluntary  retirement and  the authorities  observed  that  the respondent  has  not

given any reason for withdrawal of the notice seeking voluntary retirement.  In the case of

Balram Gupta (supra) the appellant was working as an Accountant in the Photo Division of

the Ministry  of Information  and  Broadcasting  and  by  letter dated  24.12.1980  he  sought

voluntary  retirement from service with effect from 31.3.1981.   But  later on  by his  letter

dated 20.1.1981 he sought to revoke the same on the ground that on account of persistent

and personal requests from the staff members, he had to change his mind".  This reason was

found to be justified by this Court and this Court accordingly  allowed the appeal  of the

appellant.   This  Court held  that the appellant  has  given  some plausible  explanation  for

revoking his  notice of voluntary retirement and there is no reason why such explanation

4

does  not  go  well  with  the  authorities  and  the  authorities  should  not  resort to  short  cut

methods  to  get  rid  of  the  employees.   Accordingly,  this  Court  allowed  the  appeal  and

granted  all  consequential  benefits.   Therefore,  the case of  Balram Gupta (supra)  stand

distinguished from the facts of the present case.   

8. In the case of K.L.E. Society Vs. Dr. R.R.Patil and Another  (2002)5 SCC 278

in almost identical situation, the respondent therein had sought voluntary retirement from

service on the ground that "He was severely hit by ill health and misfortune.  As a result, he

was undergoing both physical and mental agony, since long time." However, in the case of

Dr.  R.R.  Patil (supra)  there  was  no  question  agitated  that  whether  the  reason  for

withdrawal  was  given  in  the  letter  for  withdrawal  of  notice  for  voluntary  retirement.

Therefore,  this  aspect  was  not  gone  into  by  this  Court.   Hence,  the  said  case  is  also

distinguishable from the facts of the case at hand.

9. However, in the present case, we find that the incumbent who has given the

notice of voluntary retirement on 31.12.1999 and wanted to revoke the same on 22.3.2000,

i.e., before the last date 31.3.2000, has not given any explanation whatsoever for revoking

the notice of voluntary retirement and has got all the benefits which he was entitled to get on

the  basis  of  voluntary  retirement.   After  having  received  all  the  benefits  of  voluntary

retirement,  the  respondent  approached  the  Tribunal  for  setting  aside  the  order  dated

17.4.2000 accepting the notice of voluntary retirement.  This conduct of the respondent also

dis-entitles him any benefit.

10. The government service is not contractual.  It is a service which confers status

and  a person  who opts  for voluntary  retirement and  later on  wants  to revoke the same

before the expiry of the period of notice has to satisfy the authorities why he is seeking to

revoke the notice of voluntary retirement.  Rule 48(2) of the Central Civil Services (Pension)

5

Rules, 1972 clearly states that the incumbent can seek withdrawal of the notice of voluntary

retirement but with the specific approval of the authorities. Therefore, as per sub-Rule (2) of

Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 specific approval of the authority is required  for

withdrawal of the notice of voluntary retirement.  If the incumbent does not provide any

reason or material for revoking his notice of voluntary retirement then it is always open for

the authority to decline the request for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement.  If such

discipline  is  not  read  into  the  Rule  then  perhaps  every employee  can  send  a  notice  for

voluntary retirement and revokes the same at his sweet will.  This cannot be permitted.  The

Rule  mandates  that  there  should  be  a  specific  approval  of  the  appointing  authority.

Clearly,  the  Rule  provides  that  the  appointing  authority  can  certainly  approve  or

disapprove a request for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement.  

11. Therefore,  in  the  facts  of  the  present  case  where  the  respondent  has  not

provided for reason for withdrawal of his notice for voluntary retirement and secondly that

the respondent had already received all the pensionary benefits including leave encashment,

gratuity, commutation etc. and  woke up to file an application before the Tribunal as late as

November, 2000, we are of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly,

we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 29.8.2006 of the

Division Bench of the High Court and that of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit

Bench, Indore dated 13.1.2004.   

The appeal is allowed.  No order as to costs.        

...........................J.          (A.K.MATHUR)

...........................J.

6

       (P. SATHASIVAM) New Delhi July 22, 2008