The High Court of Chhattisgarh reaffirms that, under Rule 67 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, a notice of voluntary retirement can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective, notwithstanding prior acceptance by the competent authority, unless retirement has actually taken effect. This decision follows and applies settled Supreme Court precedent, confirming its binding value for subordinate courts and authorities in similar service law matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPS/2078/2025 of M. L. YADAV Vs UNION OF INDIA |
| CNR | CGHC010112002025 |
| Date of Registration | 25-03-2025 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal & Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ. |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents (e.g., Balram Gupta v. Union of India) |
| Type of Law | Service law / Administrative law |
| Questions of Law | Whether, under Rule 67(4) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, a railway employee can withdraw a notice of voluntary retirement before the intended date of retirement, even after acceptance by the appointing authority. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that, following Supreme Court precedents, an employee’s notice of voluntary retirement under Rule 67 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, can be withdrawn at any time before the intended effective date of retirement, even if accepted by the competent authority, unless the retirement has actually become effective. Since the petitioner withdrew his notice on the last day of the notice period and before the intended date of retirement, the authority’s refusal was unjustified. The court further held that, although the employee’s withdrawal must occur before the effective date, engagement in post-retirement benefits may preclude certain consequential reliefs. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Balram Gupta v. Union of India (1987 Supp SCC 228); Dr Suman V. Jain v. Marwadi Sammelan (2024) 13 SCC 598; J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India (1998) 9 SCC 559; Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar (2003) 2 SCC 721; Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra (1978) 2 SCC 301; Tek Chand v. Dib Ram (2001) 3 SCC 290; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Techno Engineers (2010) 12 SCC 210 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court interpretations of service rules governing voluntary retirement and withdrawal, equivalence of three months’ notice to calendar months rather than fixed days, application of estoppel regarding post-retirement engagements. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner applied for voluntary retirement on 17-2-2016, later stating it should take effect after two months from the grant of 7th Pay Commission benefits. He submitted withdrawal of his VRS request on 12-5-2016, which was received on 16-5-2016, the same day his VRS was accepted with effect from 16-5-2016. After VRS, he engaged as ATVM facilitator—a post available only to retired Railway employees. Authorities and CAT rejected his withdrawal and claims. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within the territorial jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and service tribunals dealing with withdrawal of VRS in pari materia rules/cases |
| Follows | Balram Gupta v. Union of India; Dr Suman V. Jain v. Marwadi Sammelan; J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India; O.P. Swarnakar v. Bank of India |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Definitively clarifies the calculation of “three months’ notice” as corresponding calendar months and not a fixed number of days, citing Supreme Court precedent.
- Reaffirms that withdrawal of VRS notice is allowed any time before the intended date of retirement, even if the notice has been accepted by the authority.
- Holds that seeking and obtaining post-retirement benefits (e.g., as an ATVM facilitator) may bar claims to consequential service benefits, applying the doctrine of estoppel.
- Provides a binding precedent for service lawyers in Chhattisgarh dealing with withdrawal of voluntary retirement/resignation under similarly-worded rules.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court reviewed Rule 67 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, interpreting the withdrawal provision in light of Supreme Court rulings (Balram Gupta, Dr Suman V. Jain, J.N. Srivastava).
- It held that an employee may at any time before the effective date of retirement withdraw notice of voluntary retirement, and the authority must not unreasonably withhold approval, especially where no administrative inconvenience is shown.
- It clarified the computation of “three months’ notice” as months by calendar date, not a fixed period of 90 days, per State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Techno Engineers.
- The facts established that the petitioner submitted withdrawal before the notice period expired and prior to the effective retirement date, so his withdrawal ought to have been accepted.
- The court held the petitioner was not entitled to further consequential benefits because he had availed benefits from a post-retirement engagement, thus attracting estoppel.
- Judgments relied upon and followed included: Balram Gupta v. Union of India, Dr Suman V. Jain v. Marwadi Sammelan, J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India, O.P. Swarnakar v. Bank of India, Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra, and others.
- Judgments distinguished as inapplicable were North Zone Cultural Centre v. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar and Shriram Manohar Bande v. Uktranti Mandal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Argued that under Rule 67(1), a three-month written notice was served for VRS.
- Cited the proviso to Rule 67(4), permitting withdrawal of VRS notice before the intended date of retirement.
- Submitted withdrawal of VRS application on 12-5-2016 was within the permitted time and could not be refused.
- Referred to Supreme Court judgments to support the position that withdrawal of VRS is permissible before it becomes effective.
Respondent
- Claimed VRS was accepted by the competent authority on 16-5-2016, prior to receipt of withdrawal.
- Noted petitioner applied and was engaged as ATVM facilitator, open only to retired employees, invoking estoppel.
- Cited Supreme Court case law to contend the petitioner, having availed post-retirement benefits, cannot claim to still be in service.
Factual Background
The petitioner, then Chief Station Manager at Railway Station Dagori, applied for voluntary retirement on 17-2-2016, later clarifying he wished it to be effective after two months from the receipt of benefits under the 7th Pay Commission. Before the intended date of retirement, he submitted a withdrawal application on 12-5-2016, which was received by the employer on 16-5-2016—the same date the VRS was accepted. Subsequently, the petitioner sought and obtained engagement as an ATVM facilitator, a position offered only to retired railway employees. The competent authority and appellate forums refused his withdrawal, leading to the present writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
- Rule 67 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, was interpreted to determine whether a notice of voluntary retirement can be withdrawn before the intended date.
- The court found that, per sub-rule (4) and its proviso, withdrawal is permissible before the intended retirement date.
- The phrase “three months’ notice” is to be computed as three calendar months, per Supreme Court precedent, and not a fixed 90 days.
- The withdrawal of notice requires authority approval, but such approval must not be unreasonably denied absent disruption of the administrative set up.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court law governing withdrawal of voluntary retirement notices prior to effective date is reaffirmed and applied.