BALBIR SINGH NEG! v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : F The SLP is ftled 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 G 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 applie>tion for voluntary retirement which he had submitted but was not accepted by the authorities. Thereafter, he filed OA. in the Tribunal H contending that he is entitled to withdraw his application before the 868

B.S. NEG! v. U.0.1. 869

relationship or master and servanrbecomes oper.ative, i.e., July 1, 199i. A .. Acceptance of his ~esignation before that date, i.~., 30.6'.1991 is not valid in law. Under Rule 48-A of the Pension Rules, a.Government servant, on completion of required pe~iod of service, -is ~ntitie·d to 'make a request for. voluntary retirement. Admittedly, that request was acceded to and resig- natiop was accepted. Learned counsel for the Petitioner sought to rely B upon the judgment of this Court in Bairam Gupia v. Union-of India, [1987] Supp. SCC 228 in which this Court had held that a Government servant after making the application but before it becomes effective and the relationship of master and the servant ceases to operate, is entitled to I .withdraw the resignation: In that case, on the facts and circumstances, it was held that he was pressurised in the first instance to voluntary retire. . c > 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 vo!Untary retirement on medical .D grounds and he was unable to discharge the duties ano that, therefore, he •' ' ' had sought to voluntarily r~tire from service. It wou1d appear that when be was transferred from Shimla to Faridabad,.,he.had submitted his applica, tion in a huff for v~luntary retirement ·and that thereafter he came forward with the ·application for withdrawal. It is true that the petitioner was ;ontitled to withdraw the resignation. But in view of the fact that he has E 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: F, R.P. .,Petition dismissed. ·