BALRAM GUPTA versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 1173 · Decided: 01-09-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BALRAM GUPTA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
SEPTEMBER l, 1987 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972: Rule 48A(4)-
Notice of voluntary retirement-Withdrawal of-When permissible. 
Civil Services: Civil Servant-Withdrawal of notice of voluntary 
A 
B 
retirement-Whether permissible. 
C 
The appellant oft'ered to resign voluntarily from his service by 
letter doted 24th December, 1980 with eft'ect from 31st March, 1981 
under Rule 48A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, 
~ havin& rendered by then more than 20 years service. The notice period D 
of three months was to commence from 1st January, 1981. By an order 
dated 20th January, 1981 he was allowed to retire voluntarily prospec-
tively with efftct from the afternoon of 31st March, 1981. 
. ~ 
On account of personal requests from the staff members the E 
'JT appellant, however, chanaed his mind and by his letter dated 31st 
January, 1981 requested the authorities that bis resignation mi11ht be 
treated as cancelled and the notice given by him be treated as with-
. drown. He was not allowed to do so and was relieved by an order dated 
~ 31st March, 1981. The respondent No. 2 Informed him that in view of 
the activities of the appellant in his capacity as the Secretary of the F 
Employees' Association It bas been found appropriate to ease him out 
from service. 
The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition on the 
ground that sub-rule (4) of Rule 48A of the Pension Rules enables the 
.. Government se"ant to withdraw his application for voluntary retire-
G 
ment only with the approval of the Government. The approval having 
not been given the rule hnd been complied with. 
In this appeal by special leave, It was contended for the appellant 
that if Rule 48(Al be read as con91stent with the constitutional require-
ments of reuonablenm, which Is a well accepted rule of construction, 
then the Government could not withhold approval to the withdrawal of H 
1173 
A 
B 
c 
1174 
[1987] 3 S.C.R. -l 
resignation without any rhyme or reason. For the respondents it was 
contended that a Government servant was not entitled to demand as of 
right permission to withdraw the letter of vplnntary retirement, it could 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
only be given as a matter of grace, that it was not in the knowledge of 
the respondent as to what prompted the appellant to request the with-
drawal, that the application for withdrawal was considered in the light'( 
of the guidelines laid down by O.M. No. 24(57)-E-V-32 dated 24th 
December, 1952 for considering and deciding in the matter of accepting .II 
or refusing the withdrawals of notice of voluntary retirement and the 1" 
request was turned down appropriately, and that once the notice was 
given it became operative immediately. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: 1.1 There was no valid reason for withholding the 
permission by the respondent to the appellant to withdraw his notice 
of voluntary retirement. [ 1182H· 1183A] 
D 
1.2 On the principle of general law that in the absence of a -,._ 
legal, contractual or constitutional bar an intimation in writing sent 
to the appropriate authority by an incumbent, of his intention or 
proposal to resign his office/post from a future specified date, can 
be withdrawn by him at any time before it effects termination of 
the tenure of the office/post or employment, the offer of relinquish· 
E ment in the instant case, contd have been withdrawn by the appellant\, 
before the date it became effective if sub-rule (4) of Rule 48-A was 
F 
G 
not there. [1180G-1181A) 
Union of India v. Shri Gopal Chandra Misra and others, 
'l' 
[1978] 3 S.C.R. 12, referred to. 
1.3 Sub-rule (4) of Rule 48-A of the Pension Rules enjoins that 
a Government servant shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice 
except with the specific approval of the appointing authority. The 
proviso to that sub-rule stipulates that the request for withdrawal shall 
be made before the intended date of his retirement. That had been done~
in the instant case. [1178H-1179A] 
·p.:
; .. 
1.4 Approval under r. 48A(4) is not ipse di.xii of the approving 
authority. The approving authority who has the statutory authority 
must act reasonably and rationally. The guidelines laid down by O.M. 
No. 24(57)-E-V-32 dated 24.12.1952 for considering and deciding in the 
H 
matter of accepting or refusing the withdrawal of notices of voluntary 
BALRAM GUPTA v. U.0.1. 
1175 
).. 
retirement are t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.