38.6c New Delhi, India, Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Employee Has No Locus To Withdraw Notice Of Voluntary Retirement After It Is Accepted: Bombay HC [Read Judgment]

By LawStreet News Network      03 May, 2019 12:00 AM      0 Comments
Employee Has No Locus To Withdraw Notice Of Voluntary Retirement After It Is Accepted: Bombay HC [Read Judgment]

The Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court on April 26, 2019, in the case of Gajanan v. Union of India and Others, has held that an employee cannot withdraw notice of voluntary retirement once it is accepted as the relationship between an employer and an employee comes to an end.

A Division Bench comprising of Justices S.V. Gangapurwala and A.M. Dhavale was hearing a writ petition filed by one Gajanan Maitri, Class II (Group-B) Income Tax Officer, Ward-Osmanabad Camp at Latur.

In this case, the petitioner, after rendering 35 years of service, on November 20, 2017, gave a notice/application for voluntary retirement from the post of Income Tax Officer. As per the notice of voluntary retirement, the petitioner intended to retire with effect from February 28, 2018. Later, on March 17, 2018, the petitioner gave an application for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement. However, the petitioner was informed that the application for voluntary retirement had been accepted on March 9, 2018.

Petitioner then challenged the said communication which rejected his application for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement before the Administrative Tribunal. The tribunal rejected the said application which led the petitioner to move the High Court.

Advocate S.P. Warad, appearing for the petitioner submitted before the court that the application withdrawing the notice of voluntary retirement was given before the acceptance of the notice of voluntary retirement, hence the notice of voluntary retirement would stand withdrawn. The petitioner has every right to withdraw the notice of voluntary retirement before its acceptance, Warad said.

He further argued that the tribunal failed to consider the said aspect in its correct perspective. Only 35 months of the service period of the petitioner had remained.

Additional Solicitor General S.B. Deshpande, appearing for the Union relied on Rule 48(1) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and submitted that the Rule does not permit the petitioner to withdraw the notice after acceptance of the notice of voluntary retirement and after the intended period of retirement is mentioned in the notice.

After hearing the submission made by both the parties, the court said that "The government employee will have locus poenitentiae to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement before the intended date of retirement and not thereafter. On the lapse of intended date of retirement, the relationship of the employer and employee would come to an end.

In the present case, the employer has accepted the notice of voluntary retirement on March 9, 2018 and had also issued an office order relieving the petitioner from service and for the first time the petitioner issued a letter withdrawing his notice of voluntary retirement on March 17, 2018. On the said date, the petitioner did not have locus to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement as the relationship of an employer and employee came to an end."

Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition by holding that the tribunal had not committed any error in rejecting the petitioner's application.

[Read Judgment]

 



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

ai-judges-the-future-of-algorithmic-decision-making-in-courts
Trending Vantage Points
“AI Judges” The Future of Algorithmic Decision-Making in Courts

Can algorithms deliver justice? This article explores AI judges, constitutional challenges, ethical risks, global models, and India’s cautious path forward.

12 January, 2026 07:07 PM

TOP STORIES

borrowers-cannot-invoke-writ-jurisdiction-to-compel-banks-to-extend-one-time-settlement-benefits-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Borrowers Cannot Invoke Writ Jurisdiction to Compel Banks to Extend One-Time Settlement Benefits: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court holds borrowers cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to compel banks to grant One-Time Settlement benefits, as OTS is not a legal right.

07 January, 2026 09:22 PM
leela-palace-udaipur-ordered-to-pay-10-lakh-after-housekeeping-staff-enters-occupied-room-without-consent
Trending Business
Leela Palace Udaipur Ordered to Pay ₹10 Lakh After Housekeeping Staff Enters Occupied Room Without Consent [Read Order]

Chennai Consumer Commission orders Leela Palace Udaipur to pay ₹10 lakh and refund room tariff for breach of guest privacy by housekeeping staff.

07 January, 2026 09:43 PM
sc-strikes-down-bihars-midway-change-in-recruitment-rules-for-assistant-engineers
Trending Judiciary
SC Strikes Down Bihar’s Midway Change in Recruitment Rules for Assistant Engineers [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules recruitment criteria cannot be changed midway, strikes down Bihar’s retrospective amendment granting weightage to contractual engineers.

07 January, 2026 10:03 PM
only-light-and-not-any-fight-madras-hc-upholds-single-judges-order-allowing-lighting-of-lamps-on-deepathoon
Trending Judiciary
Only Light And Not Any Fight: Madras HC Upholds Single Judge’s Order Allowing Lighting Of Lamps On Deepathoon [Read Judgment]

Madras High Court upholds order allowing lighting of Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon, rejecting public order objections and dismissing 20 appeals.

07 January, 2026 10:57 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email