JUDGMENT
Viney Mittal, J.
1. Petitioner Gurbachan Singh has filed the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated June 27, 2002 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana Irrigation Department-respondent No. 2 whereby the original request made by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement, though subsequently withdrawn, has been accepted. A copy of the aforesaid order dated June 27, 2002 has been appended as Annexure P/5 with the present petition.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts necessary for the decision are that on March 27, 2002, petitioner, who was working as Superintendent Grade I in the office of Engineer-in-chief, Irrigation Department, Haryana and working at the relevant time in B.B.M.B., Sector-19, Chandigarh served a notice for three months seeking voluntary retirement under the instructions issued by the State Government. A copy of the aforesaid request made by the petition has been appended as Annexure P/2 with the present petition. The aforesaid request made by the petitioner was forwarded to the Engineer-in-Chief-respondent No. 2. However, subsequently on May 13, 2002, the petitioner wrote a communication to respondent No. 2 withdrawing his aforesaid notice and request for voluntary retirement. The aforesaid communication for withdrawal of request was also sent to the Engineer-in-chief by the Secretary B.B.M.B, A copy of the aforesaid; request dated May 13, 2002 made for withdrawal by the petitioner has been appended as Annexure P/3 with the petition. The petitioner claims that he sent an advance copy of the aforesaid request directly to the Engineer-in-chief as well. Although the aforesaid original request made by the petitioner on March 26, 2002 stood withdrawal subsequently vide communication dated May 13, 2002 but still respondent No. 2 vide his order dated June 27, 2002 accepted the original request of the petitioner and ordered his voluntary retirement with immediate effect, A copy of the aforesaid order dated June 27, 2002 has been appended as Annexure P/5 with the petition.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved against the aforesaid order Annexure P/5 and has approached this Court through this petition.
4. Upon notice of the petition, the respondents have put in appearance. A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. The claim of the petitioner has been contested. Although a written statement has been filed by the respondents contesting the claim of the petitioner but still the facts as narrated in the petition and as noticed above, have not been controverted. The specific stand taken by the petitioner that the original request dated March 26, 2002 made by him seeking voluntary retirement had been withdrawn by him on May 13, 2002 even prior to the passing of the order Annexure P/5, has not been controverted.
5. In the written statement it has been stated that since in his application for withdrawal of the notice, the petitioner had not mentioned any relevant/specific circumstances which compelled him for withdrawal of notice, therefore, the said request had been rejected.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had made the original request seeking voluntary retirement and sent a notice for three months vide communication dated March 26, 2002 (Annexure P/2), Even prior to the expiry of the notice period and in any case prior to the passing of the order Annexure P/5, the petitioner chose: to withdraw his aforesaid request vide a communication dated March 31, 2002 (Annexure P/3). The petitioner even sent an advance copy of the aforesaid request for withdrawal to respondent No. 2. Inspite of the aforesaid request for voluntary retirement No. 2 chose to mechanically pass the order Annexure P/5. In fact it was not even noticed by respondent No. 2 that at the time of passing the order Annexure P/5 dated June 27, 2002, the original request made by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement was not alive, having been since with-drawn. The reasons given by the respondent, for rejecting the request for withdrawal of the original request are non-est and irrelevant. It is apparent that the order Annexure P/5 has been passed mechanically and without any due application of mind.
7. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in allowing the present petition and while quashing the order Annexure P/5, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Superintendent Grade I with continuity of service. The petitioner would also be entitled to all consequential benefits such as arrears of salary and all other allowance
etc. as a consequence of the quashing of order Annexure P/5. However, there shall be no order as to costs.