Mahendrakumar Kashinath Desale v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

19 WP 8440 23.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 19 WRIT PETITION NO.8440 OF 2023 Mahendrakumar s/o Kashinath Desale, Age 45 years, Occ. Service at present nil R/o. Near Khodiyar Mata Temple, at post Bhadane, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule ...

Petitioner Versus.

1) The State of Maharashtra, through The Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya Mumbai-32.

2) The Joint Director of Higher Education Jalgaon Division Jalgaon.

3) The President, Adishakti Dhandai Mata Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Dhule.

4) The Principal Adishakti Dhandai Mata Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Dhule Late Annasaheb R.K. Deore, Arts & Science College, Mhasadi, Tq. Mhasadi, Dist. Dhule ...

Respondents ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jadhav N.L. A.G.P. for the Respondents/State : Mr. A.S. Shinde

CORAM

: MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.

DATE : 24.07.2023 PER COURT :

We have heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P.

2.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No. 2-Joint Director of Higher Education dated 14.11.2022 whereby the authority has refused to grant approval to the withdrawal of the notice of voluntary retirement given by the petitioner pursuant to the provisions of 1/2

19 WP 8440 23.odt Rule 66(5) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982. 3.

Admittedly, the petitioner submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 01.12.2020 and made the request for its withdrawal on 06.07.2021.

4.

The Provision of Rule 66(5) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982 reads as under :

"(5) 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:

Provided that the request for withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of this retirement." 5.

Since, admittedly, the petitioner had submitted the application after the notice period was over, by virtue of the proviso (supra) he was not entitled to revoke his notice for voluntary retirement after it had lived its life to the fullest.

6.

This is precisely one of the main reasons assigned by the respondent No. 2-Joint Director of Higher Education in the impugned communication refusing to grant approval to such withdrawal. There is no illegality in the impugned order.

7.

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) mkd/- 2/2