Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Rule 50(4) Proviso | Voluntary Retirement Can Be Withdrawn Before Effective Date | Provision Held Arbitrary And Unfair
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Rajasthan Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman has held that the proviso to Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, which imposes a restriction on withdrawal of voluntary retirement after its acceptance and communication, suffers from manifest arbitrariness and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court struck down the proviso as unconstitutional, while holding that employees retain the right to withdraw applications for voluntary retirement until the effective date, subject to approval of the competent authority. The writ petition was allowed.
The petitioner, employed as a Lab Boy in the Elementary Education Department, Rajasthan, submitted an application for voluntary retirement on account of personal reasons, particularly the trauma caused by his son's suicide. The application, filed in October 2022, was accepted by the appointing authority on 14.11.2022, specifying the effective date of voluntary retirement as 01.02.2023.
However, within a few weeks, the petitioner sought to withdraw his application. On 07.12.2022, he submitted a request to cancel the voluntary retirement and continue in service. The request was rejected on 13.12.2022 citing the proviso to Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. According to the respondents, the proviso clearly stipulated that once a request for voluntary retirement had been accepted and communicated, the employee could not withdraw it.
Challenging the rejection, the petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution and assailed the constitutional validity of the said proviso. He argued that the provision was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it deprived government servants of the right to reconsider their decision even before the retirement became effective.
The petitioner relied upon judicial precedents, including Balram Gupta v. Union of India, Raj Kumar v. Union of India, Punjab National Bank v. P.K. Mittal, and Union of India v. Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy, to contend that an employee should retain locus poenitentiae (the right to withdraw) until the resignation or voluntary retirement becomes effective.
In response, the State defended the rule. It argued that acceptance and communication of the voluntary retirement application closed the matter. According to the respondents, this ensured administrative certainty and prevented disruption. They maintained that the rule was statutory in nature and not arbitrary, as withdrawal was permissible before acceptance.
Both sides referred to judgments by the Supreme Court on the validity of subordinate legislation and the concept of manifest arbitrariness. While the petitioner invoked Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Joseph Shine v. Union of India to argue that arbitrary provisions can be struck down, the respondents relied on judgments that supported finality of acceptance.
The matter thus turned on whether the impugned proviso imposed an unreasonable restriction in light of the scheme of the Rules and constitutional guarantees.
The Division Bench extensively examined the statutory scheme and judicial precedents. It recorded: “The scheme engrafted in Rule 50 lays down its own statutory policy… However, proviso to Sub-Rule (4)… operates in unfair manner.”
The Court noted that the Rules permit preponement of retirement and also provide for withdrawal of voluntary retirement applications prior to acceptance. The issue arose only when the proviso placed a complete bar after acceptance and communication, regardless of whether the retirement had taken effect. “Truncating the right of withdrawal even before the effective date, without adequate determining principle renders the provision arbitrary and violative of Article 14.”
The Bench rejected the applicability of the resignation analogy cited by the State. It stated: “There lies distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement… Acceptance only means that the employer has accepted to retire employee from a prospective date.”
Referring to precedents like Balram Gupta and Punjab National Bank, the Court observed that flexibility and reflection are key objectives of the scheme: “Flexibility does not jeopardise the government or administration… Administration should gracefully acknowledge flexibility of human mind and attitude.”
The Court further held that the provision denied employees the right to change their mind in cases where circumstances altered after acceptance but before the retirement became effective. It noted: “Even after acceptance and communication thereof, employee continues in service and relationship of master and servant continues.”
Referring to administrative considerations, the Bench concluded: “Putting complete embargo without consideration of administrative inconvenience or public interest renders the scheme manifestly arbitrary and unfair.”
The Court also noted that the petitioner’s personal tragedy demonstrated how rigidity in the rule could result in injustice: “Present case tests the provision in extreme circumstances… The provision has failed to satisfy test of fairness and rationality on touchstone of Article 14.”
The Rajasthan High Court Division Bench allowed the petition and directed that the proviso to Rule 50(4) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, must be read down to permit withdrawal of a voluntary retirement application even after its acceptance and communication, provided the request is made before the effective date of retirement. The Court found that a blanket restriction, as imposed by the proviso, could not be sustained in law.
The Court held that a government servant is entitled to reconsider their decision to voluntarily retire, and such reconsideration must be permitted so long as the final retirement has not taken effect. It observed 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.”
In making this adjustment to the rule, the Court did not dispense with the need for official scrutiny. It recorded that, “application for voluntary retirement may be permitted to be withdrawn in appropriate case with the prior approval of the appointing authority.” However, it emphasized that approval cannot be denied mechanically or automatically merely because acceptance has already been communicated. The Court cautioned that, “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.”
To prevent misuse, the Bench clarified that such withdrawal is not an open-ended entitlement. It stated, “once the effective date of voluntary retirement arrives… voluntary retirement would become effective and no prayer for withdrawal… would be considered under any circumstances.”
In the petitioner’s case, the order rejecting his application for withdrawal was quashed. The Court remanded the matter to the appointing authority with instructions to freshly consider the withdrawal application, strictly in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Ms. Heli Pathak, Mr. Harshit Bhurani, Mr. Mahipal Singh Rathore
For the Respondents: Mr. Shyam Sunder Ladrecha, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Ravindra Jala
Case Title: Bhikam Chand v. State of Rajasthan & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:14994-DB
Case Number: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 737/2023
Bench: Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman
[Read/Download order]
