1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the respondents dated 20.11.2002, whereby the voluntary retirement which was tendered by the petitioner was accepted on the same day.
2. The case of the petitioner that the petitioner was working with the respondent authority and during service he had applied for voluntary retirement which was accepted in a hasty manner on the very same day and the application for withdrawal of the same was rejected by the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and his wife are victimized by the respondents by way of suspension, chargesheet and departmental inquiries.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that due to some mental pressure, the petitioner has tendered application for voluntary retirement on 20.11.2002 and it was allowed on the same day and he had also paid an amount of his three months basic salary and after that he realized that he should not have been applied for this. Further it is contended that on the very next day i.e. 21.11.2012, the petitioner has moved application for withdrawal of the said voluntary retirement.
5. However, from the language of the impugned order, it shows the words “SWACHIK NIVARTI SEWA” and not the voluntary retirement. It is contended that that the said order passed conditionally and before moving the withdrawal application for voluntary retirement of the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments :
(a) K.L.E. Society Vs. Dr. R.R. Patil and another, (2002) 5 SCC 278, the said decision will not apply in the present case in view of the fact that the petitioner therein had given three months notice.
(b) Jayantkumar Atmaram Bhatt v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation & Anr, 1998 (2) GLR 1001. In the said decision the withdrawal was made before acceptance.
7. In the present case the acceptance was given on the very same day of applying voluntary retirement. So the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not much helpful to his case in any manner.
8. Other judgment reported as (2002) 3 SCC 437, the petitioner has opted the option for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement before the day of release of his services. Thus, the said judgment will also not apply in the present case.
9. Mr. Prashant G. Desai, learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of North Zone Cultural Centre V. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar, reported in AIR 2002 SC 2719, the same is accepted.
10. From the record, it seems that after applying for voluntary retirement, the petitioner realized that this action would not get him retiral benefit to him and he has also paid an amount of Rs. 18,600/- against a proper receipt to the authorities on the very same day which was accepted also. Petitioner has completed almost 24 years in his services with the respondent.
11. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has moved for voluntary retirement in haste, under pressure, force and the view taken by the respondent authority in accepting the same is just and proper. Petitioner has also handed over his charge on 07.11.2002.
12. Considering the submissions of the learned counsels for both the parties and the judgments relied upon by them, I am of the view that once the voluntary retirement is accepted, it cannot be taken back. Hence, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the respondent. No interference is called for. Petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.
(K.S. Jhaveri, J.) Amar