The High Court of Chhattisgarh, allowed a railway employee to withdraw his earlier notice for voluntary retirement, but held that because he took up a post-retirement engagement after the retirement order, he is not entitled to any consequential benefits. The Division Bench of Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Radhakishan Agrawal set aside both the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order and the railway authority’s refusal to accept the withdrawal, while making clear the petitioner could not profit from having both resumed service and accepted post-retirement work.
The case concerned M.L. Yadav, a then Chief Station Manager at Dagori, who had applied for voluntary retirement on February 17, 2016, giving the three months’ notice required under Rule 67 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Yadav submitted a request to withdraw that notice on May 12, 2016, the withdrawal letter arrived at the personnel office on May 16, 2016, one day before his intended retirement effective date of May 17, 2016. The competent authority had accepted the retirement and circulated the order on May 16, 2016. The petitioner’s appeal against his VRS acceptance was later dismissed by the CAT, prompting the writ petition to the High Court.
Relying on settled Supreme Court precedent, the High Court reiterated that an employee who gives notice of voluntary retirement has the right to withdraw that notice any time before the retirement becomes effective. The court examined the mechanics of a “three months” notice under Rule 67 and followed case law that treats a period of three months as expiring on the corresponding calendar date in the third month. Since Yadav’s three months’ notice ran from February 17, 2016 and effectively ended on May 16, 2016, his withdrawal submitted on that day was timely. Consequently, the court held the refusal to entertain the withdrawal was unsustainable.
But the court did not grant the petitioner all that he sought. The record showed that after the retirement order was circulated, Yadav applied on June 10, 2016 to be engaged as an ATVM facilitator at Bhatapara station a role expressly limited by a 2012 Railway Board circular to retired railway personnel. He was appointed to that role on June 28, 2016 and availed the engagement. The bench found that having accepted and acted on a post-retirement engagement, Yadav could not later claim consequential benefits flowing from continuous service. The court described such conduct as taking inconsistent positions and held that equitable considerations barred granting retrospective service benefits.
On the legal questions, the court reviewed governing authorities including Balram Gupta and later Supreme Court decisions on withdrawal of retirement notices and reiterated the principle of locus poenitentiae the ability to repent before a future effective date. It distinguished prior authorities the respondents relied on and concluded they were not applicable to the facts here. The final outcome: the High Court quashed the orders that denied Yadav’s withdrawal, but expressly denied any consequential service benefits because of his post-retirement engagement.
Case Details : WPS No. 2078 of 2025, M.L. Yadav vs Union of India and Others
Counsels : For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani and Ms. Shrijita Kesharwani, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General of India and Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, Central Government Counsel.