Shakti Prasad Mazumdar vs State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 3125 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Shakti Prasad Mazumdar vs State Of Jharkhand on 16 April, 2026

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                                2026:JHHC:11181

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      W.P.(S) No. 3777 of 2020
                                  .........

Shakti Prasad Mazumdar, aged about 56 yrs, S/o Late Prodyat Kumar Mazumdar, R/o. House No. MIC (HI) 124, Harmu Housing Colony, P.O.-Harmu, P.S. Argora, Dist.-Ranch; Jharkhand.

..... Petitioner (s) Versus

1. State of Jharkhand, through the secretary, Department of Home, Jail and disaster management, having its office at Project Building Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhand

2. Director, Sainik Kalyan Nideshalaya, Sainik Market, Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O, P.S. - Hindpiri, Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhand

3. Assistant Director, Sainik Kalyan Nideshalaya, Sainik Market, Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O, P.S. Hindpiri, Dist:

Ranchi, Jharkhand

4. District Soldier Welfare officer, Gumla, P.O. + P.S.- Gumla, Dist: Gumla, Jharkhand] ..... Respondent(s) .........

  CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
                                  .......

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate Ms. Akriti Aprajita, Advocate Mr. Harsh Utsav, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Kanishka Deo, A.C. to G.P.-IV Mrs. Sunita Kumari, A.C. to Sr.S.C.-II For the Resp. No.3 : Mr. Nipun Kr. Bakshi, Advocate Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate .........

05/16.04.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The Petitioner, who was working as Welfare Organizer in

Zila Sainik Welfare Office, Gumla, was suffering from life

threatening disease and therefore, applied for voluntary

2026:JHHC:11181

retirement on health grounds on 10.10.2019. Soon thereafter,

he sent a withdrawal letter dated 08.11.2019 as he realized that

the pre-mature voluntary retirement would lead to curtailment

of financial benefits.

3. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner continued his

service till Oct, 2020 without any break in service. It is only

when he received a letter dated 01.10.2020 from his Controlling

Office that he became aware that his initial application for

voluntary retirement was being accepted and the date of

retirement would be 31.10.2020. The Zila Sainik Welfare Officer

("ZSWO") thereafter, issued an office order dated 28.10.2020

informing the Petitioner that his request for voluntary

retirement has been accepted and that his voluntary retirement

will take effect from 31.10.2020.

4. The case of the Petitioner, relying upon the letter dated

08.11.2019 by which he had withdrawn his voluntary

retirement offer dated 10.10.2019, is that that there could not

have been acceptance of an offer which was withdrawn more

than 8 months earlier. Reliance has been placed on the decision

of Hon'ble Apex Court in J.N. Srivastava vs Union of India

and Anr. (1998) 9 SCC 559. For brevity, paragraph no. 3 of

the decision reads as follows:

3. The short question is whether the appellant was entitled to withdraw his voluntary retirement notice of three months submitted by him on 3-10-1989 which was to come into effect

2026:JHHC:11181

from 31-1-1990. It is true that this proposal was accepted by the authorities on 2-11-1989. But thereafter before 31-1-1990 was reached, the appellant wrote a letter to withdraw his voluntary retirement proposal. This letter is dated 11-12-1989. The said request permitting him to withdraw the voluntary retirement proposal was not accepted by the respondents by communication dated 26-12-1989. The appellant, therefore, went to the Tribunal but the Tribunal gave him no relief and took the view that the voluntary retirement had come into force on 31-

1-1990 and the appellant had given up the charge of the post as per his memo relinquishing the charge and consequently, he was estopped from withdrawing his voluntary retirement notice. In our view the said reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be sustained on the facts of the case. It is now well settled that even if the voluntary retirement notice is moved by an employee and gets accepted by the authority within the time fixed, before the date of retirement is reached, the employee has locus poenitentiae to withdraw the proposal for voluntary retirement. The said view has been taken by a Bench of this Court in the case of Balram Gupta v. Union of India [1987 Supp SCC 228 :

1988 SCC (L&S) 126 : (1987) 5 ATC 246] . In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court it cannot be said that the appellant had no locus standi to withdraw his proposal for voluntary retirement before 31-1-1990. It is to be noted that once the request for cancellation of voluntary retirement was rejected by the authority concerned on 26-12-1989 and when the retirement came into effect on 31-1-1990 the appellant had no choice but to give up the charge of the post to avoid unnecessary complications. He, however, approached the Tribunal with the main grievance centering round the rejection of his request for withdrawal of the voluntary retirement proposal. The Tribunal, therefore, following the decision of this Court ought to have granted him the relief. We accordingly, allow these appeals and set aside the orders of the Tribunal as well as the order of the authorities dated 26-12-1989 and directed the respondents to treat the appellant to have validly withdrawn his proposal for voluntary retirement with effect from 31-1-1990. The net result of this order is that the appellant will have to be treated to be in service till the date of his superannuation, which is said to be somewhere in 1994 when he completed 58 years of age. The respondent-authorities will have to make good to the appellant all monetary benefits by treating him to have continuously worked till the date of his actual superannuation in 1994. This entitles him to get all arrears of salary and other emoluments including increments and to get his pensionary benefits refixed accordingly. However, this will have to be subject to adjustment of any pension amount and other retirement benefits already paid to the appellant in the meantime up to the date of his actual superannuation. It was submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-authorities that no back salary should be allowed to the appellant as the appellant did not work and therefore, on the principle of "no work, no pay", this amount should not be given to the appellant. This submission of learned Senior Counsel does not bear scrutiny as the appellant was always ready and willing to work but the respondents did not allow him to work after 31-1-1990. The respondents are directed to make available all the requisite monetary benefits to the appellant as per the present order within a period of 8 weeks on the receipt of copy of this order at their end. Office shall send the same to the respondents at the earliest.

2026:JHHC:11181

5. The Petitioner is a retired defence personnel serving in

Rajya Sainik Kalyan Nideshalaya which is under the

Department of Home, Jail and Disaster management,

Government of Jharkhand. The service rules applicable to State

Government employees are generally applicable to its

ministerial staff. The Petitioner had also relied upon Rules 74(b)

of the Jharkhand Service Code incorporating terms and

conditions for pre-mature voluntary retirement. The same reads

as follows:-

74 (a) State Government may require any Government servant who has completed twenty one years of duty and twenty-five years of total service calculated from the date of his first appointment to retire from Government service, if it considers that his efficiency or conduct is not such as to justify his retention in service. Where any Government servant is so required to retire no claim to any special compensation shall be entertained.

[(b) (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sub-rule a Government servant may, after giving at least three months previous notice in writing, to the appointing authority concerned, retire from service on the date on which such a Government servant completes thirty years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice:

Provided that no Government servant under suspension shall retire from service except with the specific approval of the State Government] Thus, it is clear that the minimum notice period

prescribed in Rule 74 is 3 months before an employee can

voluntarily retire from service. In the instance case the

application was withdrawn within a month.

6. The Respondents and particularly, the Sainik Kalyan

Nideshalaya have appeared and opposed the case of the

Petitioner. It has been strenuously argued that the Petitioner

2026:JHHC:11181

was suffering from blood cancer and was incapable of

performing his duties. The application for voluntary retirement

was on medical grounds and therefore, unless he was found

medically fit for discharging his duties, he could not have

retracted from his own request for voluntary retirement. In the

Counter Affidavit filed by Respondents no. 2 to 4 it is

mentioned in paragraph 8 that the Petitioner's request for

voluntary retirement was accepted immediately by the Director,

Sainik Kalyan Nideshalaya which is borne out from note sheet

dated 16.10.2019.

7. It has also been argued that since the decision was taken

on 16.10.2019 itself, any subsequent withdrawal by the

Petitioner was of no consequence. It is also submitted on behalf

of the Respondents that the Jharkhand Service Code does not

strictly apply as all the employees in Rajya Sainik Kalyan

Nideshalaya are ex-service personnel.

8. The law on withdrawal of voluntary retirement is no longer

res integra. An application for voluntary retirement can be

withdrawn before it is accepted. The only permissible exception

is if the voluntary retirement is under a VRS scheme which

expressly prohibits withdrawal once an application is submitted

by an employee. In the absence of such express contractual

condition, the general law permits an employee to withdraw his

application before it is accepted. In case of J. N. Srivastava vs.

2026:JHHC:11181

Union of India (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court even held

that mere acceptance would also does not take away the right

of an employee to withdraw his offer of voluntary retirement if

the voluntary retirement is to take effect from any future date.

The Hon'ble Apex Court records in paragraph no. 3 that "....... It

is now well settled that even if the voluntary retirement notice is

moved by an employee and gets accepted by the Authority within

the time fixed, before the date of retirement is reached; the

employee has locus poenitentiae to withdraw the proposal for

voluntary retirement......."

9. The Respondent's stand that the voluntary retirement

application was accepted as recorded in the note sheet does not

inspire any creditability as no decision was taken for over eight

months and no formal communication was sent to the

Petitioner informing acceptance of his proposal. There is no

explanation for not communicating the decision to the

Petitioner for 8 months.

10. Further, the law is also well settled that a decision on the

file which is not communicated would not operate against the

person in relation to whom such decision was taken. In the

case at hand, for all intents and purposes, the decision was

taken only on 28.10.2020 when an office order was issued.

Even though the Assistant Director had issued a letter dated

21.10.2019 to the District Sainik Welfare Office, Gumla, the

2026:JHHC:11181

concerned employee was never informed and he continued to

work as Welfare Organizer for several months thereafter. The

office order dated 28.10.2020 clearly records that the

retirement will take effect from 31.10.2020 and not on any

other date. It is therefore, conclusively established from the

records that the Petitioner had withdrawn his offer for

voluntary retirement at least ten months before it was to come

into effect.

11. In the light of the above facts which conclusively establish

that the Petitioner had withdrawn his offer for voluntary

retirement before it was accepted, and, much before the date

when the retirement would take effect, the subsequent letter

forcibly retiring this Petitioner from service is illegal and

unsustainable.

12. Having regards to the above, the impugned decisions

dated 01.10.2020 (Annexure-3) and office order dated

28.10.2020 (Annexure-4) deserve to be, and, is hereby,

quashed and set-aside.

13. Consequently, the Petitioner is entitled to all service

benefits that would have accrued to him if he had continued in

service till his normal date of superannuation from service.

However, if the Petitioner has drawn statutory benefits

pursuant to his pre-mature retirement with effect from

31.10.2020, it will be open for the Respondents to adjust such

2026:JHHC:11181

amount against his salary dues and consequential benefits. The

difference amount of salary and other consequential benefits

that would be applicable to him as per service

rules/contract/circulars prevalent in Rajya Sainik Kalyan

Nideshalaya shall be computed and paid to the Petitioner

within 12 weeks.

14. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed.

Pending I.A., if any, are closed.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:16 /04/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R

Uploaded on 20.04.2026