JUDGMENT
Arun Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner was holding the post of Joint Secretary in the Ministry of defense. On 24th April, 1998 he applied for seeking voluntary retirement under Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 w.e.f. 16th May, 1998 (F/N). The request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 16th May, 1998 was accepted by the Government on 8th May, 1998. On 12th May, 1998 the Government announced its decision to enhance the retirement age of Govern-ment servants from fifty eight years to sixty years. On the same day the petitioner applied seeking permission to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement. The request of the petitioner for permission to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement was rejected on 16th May, 1998. The petitioner challenged the said rejection through an application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal on 19th May, 1998. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment dated 16th July, 1998 dismissed the application of the petitioner. The petitioner has fled the present petition challenging the said decision of the Tribunal.
2. The short point for consideration in the present case is the validity of the decision of the Government rejecting the request of the petitioner to permit him to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India, . In the said case, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the validity of the decision of the Government in refusing the request for permission to withdraw notice of voluntary retirement. The only ground given by the petitioner in the said case for seeking permission to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement was “on account of persistent and personal requests from the staff members, the appellant had changed his mind and consequently had by his letter dated 31st January, 1981 withdrawn his notice of voluntary retirement”. The request for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement was rejected by the Government and the officer was relieved from his post. The petitioner challenged the decision of the Government. The Supreme Court observed: “Approval, however, is not ipse dixit of the Approving Authority. The Approving Authority who has the statutory authority must act reasonably and rationally. The only reason put forward here is that the appellant had not indicated his reasons for withdrawal. This, in our opinion, sufficiently indicated that he was prevailed upon by his friends and the appellant had a second look at the matter. This is not an unreasonable reason. The guidelines for purposes of arriving at a decision in such matters are:
"(2) A question has been raised whether a Government servant who has given to the Appropriate Authority notice of retirement under the para 2(2) above has any right subsequently (but during the currency of the notice) to withdraw the same and return to duty. The question has been considered carefully and the conclusion reached is that the Government servant has no such right. There would, however, be no objection to permission being given to such a Government servant, on consideration of the circumstances of his case to withdraw the notice given by him, but ordinarily such permission should not be granted unless he is in a position to show that there has been a material change in the circumstances in consideration of which the notice was originally given.
Where the notice of retirement has been served by Government on the Government servant, it may be withdrawn if so desired for adequate reasons, provided the Government servant concerned is agreeable."
3. The Supreme Court was clearly of the view that ordinarily permission should not be granted unless the officer concerned is in a position to show that there has been a material change in the circumstances in consideration of which the notice was originally given. On the facts of the case, the Court found that there was no valid reason for withholding permission by the respondents.
4. It follows from the above decision of the Supreme Court that the only point for consideration before the Government in such matters ought to be as to whether there is any material change in the circumstances which earlier led the officer to seek voluntary retirement. In his notice of voluntary retirement dated 24th April, 1998, the petitioner stated that he had completed thirty three years of qualifying Government service and was left with one year of service before he was to superannuate. He also stated his intention to participate in the National mainstream and for that purpose he intended to join the BJP and strengthen the hands of the Prime Minister. He requested that the decision for being allowed to retire be taken immediately in order to enable him to contest an election which was due to be held in October/November, 1998.
5. In the notice dated 12th May, 1998 requesting for permission to withdraw the notice of voluntary retirement, the petitioner stated that there had been a material change in the circumstances since his request for voluntary retirement because the Government had in the meanwhile decided to increase the age of superannuation for Government employees to sixty years with immediate effect. This would give him three years of service as against less than a year of service at the time of submission of request for voluntary retirement. According to the petitioner this was a substantial change in the terms and conditions of service in his case. The increase in retirement age would give him certain further benefits. This would also give him ample opportunity to pursue his case for promotion. In view of this, he sought permission to withdraw notice for voluntary retirement with immediate effect. The Central Administrative Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner whereb he had challenged the Government decision in refusing to grant approval to his request for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Balram Gupta’s case (supra) emphasised the fact that there had been a material change in the circumstances of the petitioner between the date of request of voluntary retirement and the date of request for permission to withdraw the notice for voluntary retirement inasmuch as the Government had increased the age of retirement by two years. The increase in age of retirement gave various benefits to the petitioner which amounted to a material change in the circumstances.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also raised a point that the Raksha Mantri (defense Minister) was the Competent Authority to take the decision regarding refusal of request to withdraw the notice of voluntary retirement. According to him in the present case he had not taken the said decision and, therefore, the impugned order was liable to be struck down for that reason also. We have perused the Government records in relation to this aspect and we find that there is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this behalf. The defense Minister had been a party to the impugned decision.
7. Regarding the main issue about the validity of the rejection of request for withdrawing the notice of voluntary retirement, Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, the learned Addl. Solicitor General, submitted that the petitioner had clearly given his intention to join a political party which showed that he had compromised his neutrality which a Government servant had to maintain and, therefore, the Government decision in refusing his request was justified and correct. He tried to distinguish Balram Gupta’s case on the ground that in that case, the request for voluntary retirement was as per Rule 48A of the CCS (Pension) Rules whereas the present case fell within the ambit of Rule 48 of the said Rules. Under Rule 48A, the notice for voluntary retirement itself has to be approved by the Government because it is after twenty years of qualifying service and a Government servant is not under the said Rule permitted to retire as a matter of right whereas under Rule 48 in which the present case flls the voluntary retirement after thirty years of qualifying service is as a matter of right. We are unable to appreciate the distinction sought to be drawn by the learned Addl. Solicitor General. In our view what is material is the validity of the decision refusing to accept the request for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement and not the request for voluntary retirement itself. For approval of the request for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement, the provision in both the Rules is similar. The Rules differ only on the question of request for voluntary retirement.
8. We feel that the ratio in Balram Gupta’s case squarely applies in the facts of the present case. This leads to examination of whether there was a material change in the circumstances of the petitioner between the dates of request for voluntary retirement and the request for withdrawal of the request for voluntary retirement. According to the petitioner the material change was the Government decision in increasing the age of retirement of Government service by two years. In our view this was a material change in the circumstances. In Government service, two years additional service can mean a lot to Government servants. When the petitioner gave the notice for voluntary retirement, he was left with about one year service. The Government decision to increase the age of retirement gave him additional two years of service, which in our view was substantial and sufficient reason to seek withdrawal of the request for resignation. In Balram Gupta’s case, the only reason by way of change o circumstances given by the officer was persistent and personal requests from the staff members. This reason the Supreme Court accepted as a material change in circumstances of the Government servant. In our view the present case is on a much stronger ground so far as the factor material change in the circumstances is concerned. In this context, it is important to note the proximity between the Government decision announcing increase in age of retirement and the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of his notice for voluntary retirement. Both happened the same day and in quick succession. This shows that it was the Government decision to increase the age of retirement which really impelled the petitioner to change his mind and request the Government to permit him to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement. It may be that the material change in the circumstances has to be objectively considered, yet the subjective feeling of the officer concerned at the relevant time, as demontrated by the facts of the present case, cannot be overlooked. The proximity between the Government decision to increase retirement age and the petitioner’s request to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement shows the state of mind of the petitioner and what really led him to take the said decision.
9. The learned Addl. Solicitor General has strongly tried to justify the Government decision on the basis of intention of the petitioner to join a political party as disclosed in his notice for voluntary retirement. It was submitted that in view of expression of the said mention, the petitioner did not deserve to be in Government service. On this aspect, we would only like to say that expression of an intention does not really mean that the petitioner has actually joined politics. Besides the expression of intention to join politics has to be viewed in the context of the impending retirement of the petitioner. The same cannot be made the basis of arriving at a conclusion that petitioner had compromised his neutrality, especially in the absence of any past inclination. The petitioner is a senior officer in the Government and is well aware of the Government rules prohibiting Government servants from participating in political activity. We are sure that he can maintain his neutralit so long as he is in Government service. Secondly, if the petitioner is found to be compromising his neutrality, suitable action can be taken in accordance with Government rules. In our view, the expression of intention in the letter for voluntary retirement ought not to have been the sole determining factor in refusal to grant the request for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement.
10. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the respondents raised the question of scope of judicial review. According to him this Court should not review the Government decision in rejecting the request for withdrawal of voluntary retirement. According to him, the decision has been taken in accordance with law by way of a speaking order. The Court should not go into the correctness of the decision. As observed in Balram Gupta’s case, in these matters the Government decision cannot be based on the ipse dixit of the Government. Rule 48 Sub-rule (2) envisages a specific approval of the Appointing Authority regarding the withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement. There are guidelines on the basis of which the Government has to take such a decision. The Government, therefore, cannot act arbitrarily or according to its whims and caprices. The Government decision must satisfy the test of reasonableness. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decision of the Government in such matters i beyond the scope of judicial review.
11. The Tribunal has given certain reasons for its conclusion in dismissing the application of the petitioner whereby he had challenged the Government decision of rejecting the request for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement. We have considered each reason given by the Tribunal. We are unable to agree with the reasons given by the Tribunal in its impugned judgment. It was not necessary for the petitioner to state in his request for permission to withdraw the notice of voluntary retirement that he has changed his mind about entering politics or that he was not contesting election. This follows by virtue of being a Government servant and need not necessarily be explicitly stated in the request letter. Similarly whether the petitioner would get an opportunity to contest an election on his retirement after three years was too far fetched and ought not to have been a relevant consideration. Thirdly, the Tribunal has noted that additional two years service may not from a prctical point of view make much of a difference in the amount of pension. This again is something which in our view the Tribunal even need not have mentioned. Two years service for a Government servant means a lot of other benefits and not merely the benefit of increase in rate of pension. Even if this may not make any difference in the rate at which he will get pension after retirement, further two years Government service is a very important factor. The fourth reason given by the Tribunal is the petitioner’s mention in the request of withdrawal letter that he would get further time to pursue his case for promotion. This again is a totally irrelevant consideration. The main factor for consideration was the additional two years Government service which in our view was a material change in the circumstances.
12. For all these reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. The Government decision in refusing to approve the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of his notice for voluntary retirement is quashed. No costs.