Special Appeal against Single Judge’s order dismissing writ petition challenging acceptance of voluntary retirement. Bench found appellant waited 1.5 years after acceptance and dismissed appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Serial No. 8
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 424 of 2021 (In Writ A No.12509 of 2021)
Appellant :- Dinesh Chandra Srivastava Respondent :- State of U.P. and others
Counsel for Appellant :- Mr. Chandrachud Pandey, Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Ms. Akansha Sharma, Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1, Ms. Pooja Agarwal, Advocate for respondents no. 2 and 3
Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal,Chief Justice Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Order dated September 27, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge has been challenged by filing the present intra-Court appeal. Vide aforesaid order, the writ petition filed by the appellant impugning the order dated March 2, 2020 accepting his request for voluntary retirement was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a request was made seeking voluntary retirement with effect from August 31, 2018, however, the same was not considered. Even a reminder was sent on April 23, 2019, still it was not acted upon. Learned District Judge, Gorakhpur accepted the request for voluntary retirement on March 2, 2020. In fact, by that time, the appellant had recovered from the injuries suffered by him, on account of which he has filed an application seeking voluntary retirement. Immediately, on the very next day i.e. March 3, 2020, an application was filed seeking revocation of order of the voluntary retirement. As the same was not accepted, the writ petition was filed. He further submitted that the appellant having recovered from the injuries suffered, he should be allowed to continue in service till the age of superannuation. The application was not accepted immediately after the same was made, hence, the same should not have been accepted more than 1 and 1/2 year after the same was made.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any reason to interfere in the present appeal. It remained undisputed that till date the application seeking voluntary retirement was accepted, no application was filed for withdrawal of that application. Request could be withdrawn before its acceptance. However, after the acceptance of the request on March 2, 2020, the appellant kept quite for a period of 1 and 1/2 year before filing writ petition in this Court. It also shows that the intention of the appellant was not to work.
For the reasons mentioned above, present appeal is dismissed.
Date :- 22.12.2021 Manish Himwan/P.Sri.
(Piyush Agrawal, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge’s order dismissing the writ petition challenging the acceptance of voluntary retirement after a significant delay should be disturbed.
Dinesh Chandra Srivastava
State of U.P.
Rajesh Bindal
Piyush Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
