[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Deva Ram Godara vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 18 February, 2026

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:9043]



      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15026/2025

Deva Ram Godara S/o Varinga Ram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
Parava, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
         Of Police, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Superintendent Of Police, District Jalore.
3.       Station House Officer, Police Station Bhinmal, District
         Jalore.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Ashok Choudhary with
                                Mr. Shaitan Singh and Mr. S.S. Gour
                                for Mr. R.S. Choudhary.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati, G.C.


               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

                                  ORDER

18/02/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming following

relief(s):

"xxxxx

(i) The impugned order of voluntary retirement dated 30.07.2025 (Annx.3) & 31.07.2025 (Ann.4) passed by respondent no. 2 is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to take the petitioner on duty as he was working on the post of ASI before 31.07.2025.

(iii) The respondent No.2 may further be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

xxxxx"

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:22:15 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9043] (2 of 12) [CW-15026/2025]

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially

appointed as a Constable on 20.12.1996 and, over the course of

nearly three decades of unblemished service, earned successive

promotions: first to the post of Head Constable against the

vacancy of the year 2013-14 and thereafter to Assistant Sub-

Inspector against the vacancy of the year 2022-23. Throughout

his tenure in the respondent Department, his service record

remained spotless; no complaint or adverse remark was ever

recorded against him. His career, thus, stands marked by

dedication and integrity.

2.1. It is borne out from the record that the petitioner was

suffering from a minor stomach ailment, namely acidity and

gastric discomfort, for which he was undergoing treatment at the

Government Hospital, Sanchore. In a moment of physical distress

and mental agitation, without deliberation or consultation with his

family members or colleagues, he submitted an application dated

25.07.2025 to the Superintendent of Police, Jalore, through the

SHO, Police Station Bhinmal, seeking voluntary retirement. The

application was moved in haste and without due reflection.

2.2. Shortly thereafter, upon discussing the matter with his family

members (who were neither dependent on him due to illness nor

in favour of his premature retirement) the petitioner realised the

impropriety of his impulsive decision. Being 49 years of age and

not afflicted with any serious or incapacitating medical condition,

he found no justifiable reason to discontinue service.

Consequently, on 30.07.2025, he submitted an application seeking

withdrawal of his earlier request for voluntary retirement. The said

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:22:15 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9043] (3 of 12) [CW-15026/2025]

withdrawal application was duly forwarded on the same day by the

SHO, Police Station Bhinmal, vide Letter No. 2662.

2.3. However, in undue haste, the Superintendent of Police,

Jalore, proceeded to accept the petitioner's request for voluntary

retirement vide order dated 30.07.2025, directing that he be

relieved from service with effect from 31.07.2025. The acceptance

was accorded within a span of merely five days from the date of

the original application and on the very same day on which the

withdrawal request was submitted, without adverting to the

mandate of Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension)

Rules, 1996, which contemplates a notice period of not less than

three months and preserves the authority's discretion in

accordance with sub-rule (3).

2.4. Pursuant to the said order, an entry was made in the

Roznamcha (General Diary) by the SHO, Police Station Bhinmal,

and the petitioner was relieved from service with effect from

31.07.2025 and being aggrieved thereof, the instant writ petition

has been filed.

2.5. Prima facie, the action of the respondent authority in

accepting the request for voluntary retirement within five days,

without observing the statutory notice period and without

affording the petitioner the benefit of reconsideration during the

cooling-off period envisaged under Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996,

forms the gravamen of the present challenge.

3. Counsel representing the petitioner submits that the

petitioner had preferred an application before the respondents on

25.07.2025 (Annex.1) requesting to voluntarily retire the

petitioner. He submits that however, the petitioner on 30.07.2025

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:22:15 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9043] (4 of 12) [CW-15026/2025]

(Annex.2) preferred an application seeking withdrawal of the

application filed seeking voluntary retirement, however, the

respondents vide order dated 30.07.2025 (Annex.2) voluntarily

retired the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has been

retired while invoking Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services

(Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996'), however, he

submits that Rule 50(4) of the Rules of 1996 was laid challenge by

way of filing writ petition before the Hon'ble Division Bench being

"D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.737/2023 : Bhikam Chand v.

State of Rajasthan & Ors.". He submits that the Hon'ble Division

Bench vide order dated 20.03.2025 had allowed the said writ

petition with the direction to the respondents to consider the

application of the petitioner for withdrawal of the application for

voluntary retirement while passing a reasoned order and thus,

urges, to accept the instant writ petition in the same terms as in

the case of Bhikam Chand (supra).

4. On the other hand, counsel representing the respondents

submits that in view of Rule 50(4) of the Rules of 1996, the

respondents have allowed the application filed by the petitioner

seeking voluntary retirement. He submits that once the application

for voluntary retirement has been accepted and communicated to

the petitioner, respondents, thereafter, are not required to permit

petitioner to withdraw the request of voluntary retirement.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

material available on record.

6. The petitioner had preferred an application seeking

withdrawal of the voluntary retirement on 30.07.2025 and on the

very same day, respondents had passed the order retiring

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:22:15 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9043] (5 of 12) [CW-15026/2025]

petitioner on voluntary basis. The order dated 30.07.2025

(Annex.3) has been passed by respondent No.2 in view of Rule 50

of the Rules of 1996.

6.1. It would be appropriate to reproduce the amended sub-Rule

(4) of Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996:

"2. Amendment of Rule 50.- xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

(4) A Government servant, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority. The application for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement shall be presented to the appointing authority, before issue of the order of acceptance of voluntary retirement.

xxxxxxx"

6.2. The proviso to the amended sub-Rule 4 of Rule 50 of the

Rules of 1996 says that once the request of a Government servant

for voluntary retirement has been accepted and communicated to

him in writing by the appointing authority, it shall not be open to

the Government servant to withdraw the request of voluntary

retirement. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that

petitioner preferred an application seeking withdrawal of voluntary

retirement on 30.07.2025 and on the same day, petitioner's

application seeking voluntary retirement has been accepted by the

respondents.

7. This Court also takes into consideration the judgment passed

by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated

20.03.2025 in the case of Bhikam Chand (supra). The relevant

paras of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

"xxxxxxxxxxxx

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:22:15 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9043] (6 of 12) [CW-15026/2025]

42. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, we are inclined to read down proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 in the manner that even after acceptance of application for voluntary retirement and communication thereof, if an application for withdrawal of voluntary retirement is made prior to the effective date of retirement, the application will have to be considered on its own merits as also on consideration of administrative inconvenience and application for voluntary retirement may be permitted to be withdrawn in appropriate case with the prior approval of the appointing authority. Merely because, application for voluntary retirement was accepted and decision thereof communicated, the application for withdrawal of voluntary retirement should not be rejected at the threshold without application of mind to the relevant aspects of administrative inconvenience. It goes without saying that once the effective date of voluntary retirement arrives at without any application for withdrawal of voluntary retirement having been made, voluntary retirement would become effective and no prayer for withdrawal of voluntary retirement would be considered under any circumstances.

43. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Order passed by the appointing authority rejecting application for withdrawal of prayer of voluntary retirement is set aside. Case is remanded back to the appointing authority for due and proper consideration of the application for withdrawal of voluntary retirement. However, in the event, the appointing authority decides not to grant approval to the application for withdrawal of voluntary retirement, the order must speak the reasons referable to administrative inconvenience as on the date of submission of application for withdrawal of the prayer for voluntary retirement."

8. Taking into consideration the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Bhikam Chand v. State of

Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 737/2023,

wherein sub-rule (4) of Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 was read

down, this Court finds that the petitioner duly submitted an

application seeking withdrawal of voluntary retirement prior to the

effective date of retirement, as the application was filed on

30.07.2025 and the effective date of retirement is 31.07.2025.

The application dated 30.07.2025 for withdrawal is still pending

consideration and has not yet been decided by the respondent.

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:22:15 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9043] (7 of 12) [CW-15026/2025]

Even if the respondent has accepted the application for voluntary

retirement, the respondents were required to consider the

application for withdrawal of voluntary retirement on its own

merits, including consideration of administrative inconvenience.

However, the respondent has failed to do so.

9. In the case of Balram Gupta v. Union of India (AIR 1987

SC 2354), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a government

servant who has submitted a notice of voluntary retirement is

entitled to withdraw the same before it becomes effective, and

that such withdrawal should ordinarily be permitted unless it

causes administrative prejudice or the rules specifically bar such

withdrawal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that until the

retirement becomes effective, the jural relationship of employer

and employee continues. Relevant para(s) of the said judgment is

reproduced hereunder:

"xxxxxxxx

12. In this case the guidelines are 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. In the facts of the instant case such indication has been given. The appellant has stated that on the persistent and personal requests of the staff members he had dropped the idea of seeking voluntary retirement. We do not see how this could not be a good and valid reason. It is true that he was resigning and in the notice for resignation he had not given any reason except to state that he sought voluntary retirement. We see nothing wrong in this. In the modern age we should not put embargo upon people's choice or freedom. If, however, the administration had made arrangements acting on his resignation or letter of retirement to make other employee available for his job, that would be another matter but the appellant's offer to retire and withdrawal of the same happened in so quick succession that it cannot be said that any administrative set up or arrangement was affected. The administration has now taken a long time by its own attitude

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:22:15 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9043] (8 of 12) [CW-15026/2025]

to communicate the matter. For this purpose the respondent is to blame and not the appellant.

13. We hold, therefore, that there was no valid reason for withholding the permission by the respondent. We hold further that there has A been compliance with the guidelines because the appellant has indicated that there was a change in the circumstances, namely, the persistent and personal requests from the staff members and relations which changed his attitude towards continuing in Government service and induced the appellant to withdraw the notice. In the modern and uncertain age it is very difficult to arrange one's future with any amount of certainty, a certain amount of flexibility is required, and if such flexibility does not jeopardize Government or administration, administration should be graceful enough to respond and acknowledge the flexibility of human mind and attitude and allow the appellant to withdraw his letter of retirement in the facts and circumstances of this case. Much complications which had arisen could have been thus avoided by such graceful attitude. The court cannot but condemn circuitous ways "to ease out" uncomfortable employees. As a model employer the government must conduct itself with high probity and candour with its employees.

14. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated 13th of July, 1981 and the same are, therefore, set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs and the appellant is entitled to be put back to his job with all the consequential benefits being treated as in the job from 31st of March, 1981."

10. Similarly, in the case of J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India

(AIR 1999 SC 1571), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that

even after acceptance of a voluntary retirement request, the

employee retains the right to withdraw the same before the

effective date of retirement, as the cessation of service takes

effect only from the specified date and not from the date of

acceptance. Relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced

hereunder:

"xxxxxxxxx

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 from 31-1-1990. It is true that this proposal was accepted by the authorities on 2-11-1989. But thereafter

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:22:15 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9043] (9 of 12) [CW-15026/2025]

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 MANU/SC/0608/1987 : (1987)IILLJ541SC . 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

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:22:15 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9043] (10 of 12) [CW-15026/2025]

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."

11. Likewise, in the case of Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project

and Development India Ltd. (AIR 2000 SC 2473), it was held

by Hon'ble Supreme Court that where the employee seeks to

withdraw the notice of voluntary retirement prior to the date on

which it is to take effect, such withdrawal must be allowed, and

the employer cannot deny reinstatement on the ground that the

notice had already been accepted. Relevant para(s) of the said

judgment is reproduced hereunder:

"xxxxxxxx

3. Since it was specifically stated in that letter that release memo along with detailed particulars will follow, the appellant continued in service till 26.9.1997 when he was relieved from the post in question. In the meantime, the appellant had already submitted a letter to the respondent on 7.8.1997 (followed by another letter dated 24.9.1997) withdrawing the letter dated 18.10.1995 by which he had sought voluntary retirement. But this letter was not given effect by the respondent - management.

4. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed by the Single Judge. The Writ Appeal filed against that judgment was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment. The High Court did not accept the contention of the appellant that he having withdrawn the letter of voluntary retirement should be allowed to continue in service.

5. From the facts stated above, it would be seen that though the option of voluntary retirement exercised by the appellant by his letter dated 18.10.1995 was accepted by the respondent-management by their letter dated 30.7.1997, the appellant was not relieved from service and he was allowed to continue in service till 26.9.1997, which, for all practical

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:22:15 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9043] (11 of 12) [CW-15026/2025]

purposes, would be the "effective date" as it was on this date that he was relieved from service. In the meantime, as pointed out above, the appellant had already withdrawn the offer of voluntary retirement vide his letter dated 7.8.1997. The question which, therefore, arises in this appeal is whether it is open to a person having exercised option of voluntary retirement to withdraw the said offer after its acceptance but before it is made effective. The question is squarely answered by the three decisions, namely, Balram Gupta v. Union of India and Anr. MANU/SC/0608/1987 :

(1987)IILLJ541SC ; J. N. Srivastava v. Union of India and Anr. MANU/SC/1577/1998 : (1999)ILLJ546SC and Power Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia MANU/SC/ 1136/1997 : (1997)IILLJ819SC , in which it was held that the resignation, in spite of its acceptance, can be withdrawn before the "effective date". That being so, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside with the direction that the appellant shall be allowed to continue in service with all consequential benefits. There will, however, be no order as to costs."

12. Collectively, these decisions lay down the settled principle

that a notice of voluntary retirement can be withdrawn at any time

before it becomes operative, and acceptance by the employer

does not by itself terminate the service relationship prior to the

effective date.

13. The petitioner had submitted application for withdrawal of

voluntary retirement from service on 30.07.2025, which the

respondents accepted vide order dated 30.07.2025 i.e. on the

same date. However, the effective date of retirement was

31.07.2025. Since the petitioner had sought withdrawal before the

effective date of retirement i.e. 31.07.2025, and considering that

the application was still pending decision as well as the judgment