JUDGMENT
Singh, C.J.
1. By this appeal, the appellant questions the orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27.7.2001 and 9.11.2001.
2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The appellant was serving as Senior Assistant in the respondent Corporation. On 8.1.2001, the appellant, by means of an application, sought voluntary retirement with effect from 31.3.2001 on the ground of his ill health and domestic problems. The application of the appellant was allowed by the respondent vide its order dated 7.2.2001 and the appellant was permitted to retire with effect from 7.4.2001. The appellant, however, on 4.4.2001 moved an application before the respondent withdrawing his offer of voluntary retirement for the reasons that he has recovered from his ill health. The respondent, however, rejected the application of the appellant inter alia for the reason that the appellant did not file any medical certificate in support of is claim of having recovered from his ill health. Thereafter, the appellant filed a writ petition before this court, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3598/2001. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge observed that the appellant ought to have approached the respondent Corporation by filing a representation rather than directly coming before this court by means of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, accordingly dismissed the writ petition with the following order :-
“However, the petitioner is free to file a detailed representation for these grievances to the Chairman cum Managing Director of the Corporation in the matter and if such a representation is made by the petitioner, the Chairman cum Managing Director of the Corporation shall decide the same in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt thereof and a certified copy of this order which is to be filed by the petitioner. In case the grievance of the petitioner is not acceptable, a reasoned order to passed, a copy of the same be sent to the petitioner by registered post A.D. In case where on the representation order goes adverse to the petitioner the petitioner is free to apply for the revival of this petition by filing a
simple note.”
3. After dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant moved a representation before the respondent in consonance with the order of the learned Single Judge. In the representation, it was inter alia stated that the appellant had applied for voluntary retirement on the ground of his failing health, but now he has regained the same and, therefore, he should be allowed to join service and his application withdrawing his earlier application for voluntary retirement be allowed. The Chairman of the respondent Corporation rejected the representation for the reason that the appellant had not submitted a medical certificate testifying to the claim that he had regained his health. Thereupon, the appellant filed an application for revival of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the matter, by order dated 9.11.2001, dismissed the application. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the application noted that it was admitted by the appellant in the application for voluntary retirement that he was ill and was unable to work properly. The learned Single Judge also noted that the appellant had stated in the application that his eye sight was. weak and he was unable to recognize the words and he could recognize words only by guess work. The learned Single Judge also considered the fact that no medical evidence was produced before the respondent Corporation which could support the claim of the appellant that he was no longer ill. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge was of the view that no relief could be granted to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In order to appreciate the claim of the appellant that he had regained his health and he had withdrawn his application for voluntary retirement on 4.4.2001, after his application for voluntary retirement was accepted on 7.2.2001, it is necessary to refer to his application dated 8.1.2001 which the appellant had moved before the respondent Corporation for seeking voluntary retirement. The application reads as follows :-
Jheku v/;{k ,oa izcU/k & funs’kd
jktLFkku y?kq m|ksx fuxe fy-
t;iqj ¼jkt-½
     fo”k; %
LosfPNd lsokfuo`fr LohÑfr djus ckcr~ A
egksn;]
     mijksDr
fo”k; esa fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ vius LokLF; ,oa okfjokfjd fLFkfr ds dkj.k
fuxe dh lsok djus esa vius vkidksa v{ke eglwl djus yxk gS A iSany FkksM+h nwj
pyus esa lkal Qwy tkrh gS A vf/kd nsj rd cSBus ij fyoj okys fgLls esa nnZ gksus
yxrk gS A vka[kksa dh n`f”V ij Hkh ‘kjhj Hkkjh gksus ds dkj.k QdZ iM+us yxk
gS A v{kj vankt ls gh igpku fd;s tk ldrs gSaa A
     vr% Jheku~ th
ls fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ fnukad 31 ekpZ 2001 ls LosfPNd lsokfuo`fr gsrq viuk
izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj jgk gS A mDr uksfVl vof/k esa ;fn dqN le; de iM+rk gS rks
izcU/k ‘ks”k fnukad osru dh jkf’k ns; Hkqxrkuksa esa dkVus ds fy, l{ke
jgsxk A vr% izkFkhZ dks fnukad 31-3-2001 ls lsokfuo`fr LosfPNd lsokfuo`fr ds vk/kkj
ij djkrs gq, nl lEcU/k esa ns; leLr ifjykHk ¼xzsP;wVh vodk’kksa dk osru ,oa
Hkfo”; fuf/k½ fnykus dh O;oLFkk iznku djsa A
      mDr
uksfVl vof/k lekIr gksus dh fnukad 31-3-2001 rd bl lEcU/k esa eq[;ky; ls
izR;qRrj ikIr ugha gksus dh fLFkfr izkFkhZ ;g ekurs gq, fd esjk izkFkZuk i=
LosfPNd lsokfuo`fr gsrq Lohdkj dj fy;k x;k gS] vkSj izkFkhZ fnukad 31-3-2001 dks
lka;dku mijkUr dk;kZy; vkuk cUn dj nsxk A
      mfpr ,oa
vko’;d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf”kr gS A
      l/kU;okn
A
izfrfyfi % Jheku~ mi egkizcU/kd ¼d-ek-½
       jkt
fldks] t;iqj dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko’;d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsk”kr
                                     Â
izkFkhZ
                                 Â
¼jktsUnz izlkn prqosZnh½
                                    Â
ofj”B lgk;d
5. From the application, it is clear that the appellant sought voluntary retirement
on the ground of his ill health. In the application, he asserted that he does not consider
himself capable of discharging his duties; that his eye sight was weak; that he was
reading the words only by guess work; and that walking small distance made him
breathless. He also stated that in case the respondent Corporation failed to reply to the
application by 31.3.2001, he shall consider his application for voluntary retirement to
have been accepted by the respondent Corporation. Besides, he categorically told the
respondent that he will not come to office after 31.3.2001. It appears that the appellant
tried to take advantage of the order giving effect to his request for voluntary retirement
with effect from 7.4.2001 instead of 31.3.2001. We have not been able to appreciate as
to why the respondent allowed the appellant to retire with effect from 7.4.2001, when
the appellant himself stated that he should be allowed to voluntarily retire with effect
from 31.3.2001. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to throw any
light on this aspect of the matter. It appears to us that this order was passed to give
undue advantage to the appellant. The appellant, by a communication dated 4.4.2001
addressed to the respondent Corporation, withdrew his request for voluntary retirement. Even though it was claimed in the communication that he had recovered from
his ailments, yet no medical certificate was attached therewith in support of his claim.
The Chairman of the respondent Corporation rejected the application of the appellant
on the ground that no proof was submitted by the appellant to support his claim that
he had regained his lost health.
6. According to Rule 36(A)(e) of the Rajasthan Small Scale Industries Corporation Ltd. Service Rules, 1972, a Corporation employees may withdraw the notice given under Clause (e) of this Rule seeking permission to retire voluntarily with the approval of the appointing authority provided the request for such withdrawal is made before the expiry of the notice. Since this rule is pertinent and would clinch the controversy, we would like to reproduce the same. The rule reads as follows :-
“Rule 36(A) Optional Retirement on completion of 20 years qualifying service :
(e) A Corporation employee may withdraw the notice given under Clause (a) of this Rule with the approval of the appointing authority provided the request for such withdrawal is made before the expiry of the notice.”
7. Thus, it is clear that before the employee is allowed to withdraw the application for seeking voluntary retirement, he has to seek the approval of the appointing authority and the request for withdrawal is to be made before the expiry of the notice. As already pointed out, in the application for seeking voluntary retirement, the appellant has specifically stated that he should be allowed to retire with effect from 31.3.2001. It was also specifically stated that the notice shall expire by the aforesaid date. Since the appellant did not seek any permission of the appointing authority to withdraw the application for voluntary retirement and he made the application after the expiry of the notice, the appellant’s request for withdrawal of application for voluntary retirement was rightly refused by the respondent Corporation.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balram Gupta v. Union of India and Anr. (1), in support of his plea that the appellant was entitled to withdraw the application seeking voluntary retirement before 7.4.2001. It appears to us that the decision of the Supreme Court in Balram Gupta (supra) turned on its own facts and circumstances. In the instant case, the striking feature is that the appellant himself in his letter dated 8.1.2001 depicted his poor state of health. The letter categorically stated that he was weak and could not even walk, and would stop working from 31.3.2001. It is noteworthy that the appellant did not withdraw his application seeking voluntary retirement before 31.3.2001. He allowed that date to pass and made an application for withdrawal of his earlier application seeking voluntary retirement on 4.4.2001, In public interest, therefore, such a person could not have been allowed to be taken back in service.
9. For the foregoing reasons, we are in agreement with the view of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
