Absolute Bar On Withdrawal Of Voluntary Retirement Once Accepted 'Unfair': Rajasthan HC Reads Down Provision In Civil Service Pension Rules

Reading down the proviso to Rule 50(4) of State Civil Services (Pension) Rules barring withdrawal from voluntary retirement once the application is accepted by the employer, the Rajasthan High Court said putting a complete embargo on an employee's choice to withdraw retirement plea even before it becomes effective renders the scheme suffering from manifest arbitrariness. 

It further held that withdrawal of a voluntary retirement application cannot be rejected without application of mind. 

Rule 50(1) provided for a 3 months notice period before an accepted application of voluntary retirement could become effective. However proviso to Rule 50(4), states once the request for voluntary retirement was accepted and communicated, it shall not be open for the employee to withdraw the request of voluntary retirement.

The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman opined that the restriction incorporated by the proviso, without reference to any determining principle, was destructive of the objective of providing 3 months window period under Rule 50(1), before an application for voluntary retirement became effective.

"...even if administrative convenience and other relevant factors prompt the employer to accept the application for voluntary retirement, putting a complete embargo on the choice of the employee to withdraw his/her application even before the effective date comes into operation, without there being any compelling circumstances as to how acceptance of withdrawal of voluntary retirement may lead to administrative inconvenience, only on the basis that prayer for voluntary retirement has been accepted and communicated, renders the scheme suffering from manifest arbitrariness and unfairness...As and when application for withdrawal of voluntary retirement is made, as long as the effective date has not arrived and retirement not taken effect resulting in termination of jural relationship of master and servant, there is no reason why, in the absence of adequate determining principle put forth before the Court, such a rule of putting complete embargo on withdrawal of  application for voluntary retirement, once it is accepted though effective date has not arrived, should not be considered on relevant aspects. Provision mandating application of mind by the competent authority to grant or not to grant approval either for pre-ponement of the effective date or even approval of voluntary retirement saves the provision from being irrational or unreasonable and to say, from manifest arbitrariness". 

The court said that if considers the well accepted legal position that jural relationship between the employer and the employee continues till the effective date of voluntary retirement, then truncating the right of withdrawal of application for voluntary retirement even before the effective date of retirement without any adequate determining principle renders the provision arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Background

The Court was hearing a petition filed by a government employee who had applied for voluntary retirement following his son's suicide. However, following acceptance and communication of this retirement application, he submitted a withdrawal application which was rejected by the State.

In this background, petition was filed challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 50(4) and attached proviso of the Rules, alleging these to be arbitrary, unreasonable and irrational, and hence violative of Article 14,

It was argued that the objective behind providing a notice window of three months was to allow the employee to reflect upon the decision to quit the service, and any undue restriction of that right without any objective or rationality was violative of Article 14.

Findings

After hearing the contentions, the Court perused the precedents on the scope of judicial review in the matters of challenge to the validity of a provision on the ground of manifest arbitrariness. It was observed that while determining the validity on such a ground, it had to determine whether the statute was capricious, irrational and without adequate determining principle.

The Court held that the 2 main objectives behind providing a 3 months notice window was two-fold. Firstly, to provide an opportunity to the employer to analyse whether such application could be accepted in light of contingencies like pending inquiry, due recovery etc. and secondly to provide an opportunity to the employee to rethink the decision that might have been taken in the heat of the moment, as a knee jerk reaction.

In this background, it was held that,

“If we juxtapose the proviso and the provision contained in Sub- Rule (4) with the provision contained in Sub-Rule (1), the manner in which restriction has been incorporated to limit the option without reference to any determining principle, appears to be destructive of the objective of having three months window period before an application for voluntary retirement becomes effective.”

The court said that there was no determining principle stated in the Rule, behind mechanical rejection of application for withdrawal merely because it was accepted and communicated.

"In the present case, the young son of the petitioner committed suicide. This by all means was indeed a great mental shock to the petitioner sinking him in great deal of sorrow and depression, substantially effecting reasoned thought process which led to submission of application for voluntary retirement from service, an outcome of depressive overtone. The petitioner took some time to come out of the said grief before he could emerge out of such a situation and regain a composed and rationale thinking and reflection on the decision which he had taken in a state of despair.”

In this background, it was held that in cases where it was found that allowing withdrawal application even after its acceptance would not lead to administrative inconvenience or would be against public interest, its refusal would amount to mechanical exercise of power.

Hence, it was held that proviso to Rule 50(4) of the Rules suffered from manifest arbitrariness, and had to be "read down to retain the constitutionality" of the rest of the provision.

Consequently, the court said, even after acceptance and communication of an application of voluntary retirement, if a withdrawal application was filed, it had to be considered on its merits along with the considerations of administrative inconvenience. It may be permitted in appropriate cases with prior approval of appointing authority.

Rejection of such withdrawal application at the threshold, merely because it was accepted and communicated shall not be done.

The petition was allowed, and the order passed by the State rejecting the withdrawal application of the petition was set aside. The matter was remanded back to be considered on merits. In was stated that in case the withdrawal application was rejected, reason referring to administrative inconvenience had to be recorded.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

Title: Bhikam Chand v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 169

Click Here To Read/Download Order