Himachal Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition filed by the Principal of Government Degree College, Solan, against the impugned order wherein her request for withdrawal of premature retirement was rejected, a Single Bench of Sandeep Sharma, J.*, allowed the petition, reiterating that the appointing authority had no discretion to refuse withdrawal if the request was made before lapse of the notice period and before the retirement had taken effect. Thus, the Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to rejoin the service from the date she had tendered the request for withdrawal of resignation.
Background
The petitioner, Principal of Government Degree College, Kandaghat, Solan, applied for premature retirement due to ill health. Her request was accepted and accordingly, vide a notification, she was ordered to be retired. However, before the petitioner could retire per the notification, she made a representation to the competent authority seeking withdrawal of notice for premature retirement stating that her health had improved and she was fit to continue service. Upon rejection of the withdrawal request, she filed the present petition.
Analysis
Upon perusal of Rule 43(6) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021(‘the Rules’), the Court stated that the rule revealed that a government servant, who decides to retire under the aforesaid rule and gives notice to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority.
While placing reliance on Balram Gupta v. Union of India, 1987 Supp SCC 228, the Court reiterated that the date of actual retirement is the key factor and not the date of acceptance of notice. If there is a change in circumstance after submission of the notice of withdrawal, the competent authority while considering the request for withdrawal of notice for retirement, should exercise such discretion judiciously. The appointing authority has no discretion to refuse withdrawal if the request is made before the notice period lapses and before the retirement has taken effect. The employee cannot be treated as functus officio during the notice period.
The Court also noted that the authority, while considering the petitioner’s withdrawal request, did not record any reasons for exercising its discretion. The petitioner explained the circumstances under which she changed her mind, i.e., her health, therefore, the competent authority ought to have given due consideration to the facts and circumstances. In this regard, the court referred to Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496.
The Court rejected the contention that the petitioner’s premature retirement was governed by the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 2022, which do not provide for withdrawal of a notice for retirement, stating that this did not bar the appointing authority from reconsidering the matter upon an application by the employee for withdrawal of notice for premature retirement. Otherwise, Rule 43(6) of the Rules was applicable here.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition, thereby quashing the notification of retirement and order of rejection of the petitioner’s request. The Court directed that the respondents to permit the petitioner to rejoin the service from the date she had tendered the request for withdrawal of resignation. Since the petitioner never worked from the date of her premature resignation till the date of re-joining, she shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits but certainly, such period shall be counted for her seniority and other consequential benefits.
[Indira Daroch v. State of Himachal Pradesh, CWP No. 3659 of 2025, decided on 15-05-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Sandeep Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Arun Kaushal
For the respondent: Advocate General Anup Rattan, Additional Advocate General Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General B.C. Verma, and Deputy Advocate General Ravi Chauhan
