W.P.(C)3029/2026 Page 1 of 17

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 23.03.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 15.04.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 15.04.2026

+ W.P.(C) 3029/2026, CM APPL. 14577/2026, CM APPL.

14578/2026, CM APPL. 18109/2026

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Petitioners

Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC along

with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh,

Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr.

Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.

versus

DHEER SINGH .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Ankit Mehta, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J.:

1. Through the present Petition, the Petitioners pray for quashing

of the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by learned Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter

referred to as the „Tribunal‟] in O.A. No. 4796/2024 whereby the

Tribunal has allowed the said Original Application filed by the

Respondent, set aside the Office Order dated 03.05.2024 issued by the

Petitioners accepting the Respondent‟s request for voluntary

retirement w.e.f. 08.05.2024, and has further directed reinstatement of

the Respondent in service with all consequential benefits, including

W.P.(C)3029/2026 Page 2 of 17

continuity of service, arrears of salary and other attendant benefits.

2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition

is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Respondent

was entitled in law to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement

after the same had already been accepted by the competent authority

merely two days prior to the intended date of retirement, in the face of

the express stipulation contained in Rule 43(6) of the Central Civil

Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 mandating that any request for

withdrawal of voluntary retirement must be made not less than fifteen

days before the intended date of retirement.

FACTUAL MATRIX :

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present

Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

4. The Respondent was initially appointed on 06.05.1987 to the

post of Masalchi (cook) in Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital, which is

under the administrative control of the Government of NCT of Delhi,

and continued in service for several decades. It is not in dispute that,

pursuant to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion

Committee (DPC), the Respondent was promoted to the post of Head

Cook vide Office Order dated 21.09.2017.

5. On 09.02.2024, the Respondent submitted an application

seeking voluntary retirement from service under the applicable

provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021,

[hereinafter referred to as the „CCS Rules‟]. The aforesaid request for

W.P.(C)3029/2026 Page 3 of 17

voluntary retirement was processed by the competent authority and

came to be accepted vide Office Order dated 03.05.2024, whereby the

Respondent was permitted to voluntarily retire from service with

effect from 08.05.2024 (afternoon).

6. It is also not in dispute that subsequent to the acceptance of his

request for voluntary retirement, the Respondent submitted a

representation dated 06.05.2024 seeking withdrawal of his earlier

request and praying that he be permitted to continue in service. The

said request for withdrawal was not acceded to by the Petitioners, and

consequently, the Respondent stood voluntarily retired from service

with effect from 08.05.2024 in terms of the Office Order dated

03.05.2024.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Respondent approached the

Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 4796/2024 under Section 19 of the

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, inter alia, seeking setting aside

of the Office Order dated 03.05.2024, reinstatement in service with

consequential benefits, including back wages, and other ancillary

reliefs.

8. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the submissions advanced

on behalf of the parties and placing reliance upon the decisions of the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Balram Gupta v. Union of India

1

, J.N.

Srivastava v. Union of India

2

and Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project

& Development India Ltd.

3

, as also the judgment of this Court in

1

(1987) Supp SCC 228

2

(1998) 9 SCC 559

3

(2000) 5 SCC 621

W.P.(C)3029/2026 Page 4 of 17

Birender Singh Ex DC v. Union of India & Ors.

4

, proceeded to hold

that, insofar the Respondent had sought withdrawal of his request for

voluntary retirement prior to the effective date of retirement, the

action of the Petitioners in not permitting such withdrawal was

unsustainable in law.

9. On the aforesaid reasoning, the Tribunal allowed the Original

Application, set aside the Office Order dated 03.05.2024, and directed

reinstatement of the Respondent in service with all consequential

benefits, including continuity in service, arrears of salary and

increments.

10. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the Petitioners have

approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition, assailing

the Impugned Order.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES :

11. Contentions of the Petitioners:

11.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioners assailed the Impugned

Order primarily on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to

appreciate the express statutory framework governing voluntary

retirement under the CCS Rules, and has granted relief to the

Respondent in the teeth of a mandatory provision of law.

11.2. It was submitted that Rule 43(6) of the CCS Rules clearly

stipulates that a government servant, who has elected to retire and has

given the requisite intimation, shall be precluded from withdrawing

4

2025 DHC 8315 (DB)

W.P.(C)3029/2026 Page 5 of 17

such election, except with the specific approval of the competent

authority, and further mandates, by way of a proviso, that any request

for withdrawal must be made not less than fifteen days prior to the

intended date of voluntary retirement. It was contended that the said

requirement is mandatory in nature and admits of no exception.

11.3. It was submitted that in the present case, the Respondent sought

withdrawal of his request for voluntary retirement on 06.05.2024,

whereas the intended date of retirement was 08.05.2024. The request

was thus made only two days prior to the effective date and is ex facie

in violation of the mandatory requirement prescribed under the Rules.

11.4. It was further contended that the Respondent‟s request for

voluntary retirement had already been accepted by the competent

authority vide Office Order dated 03.05.2024, and therefore, the right

to withdraw the same did not survive except in strict compliance with

the governing statutory provisions.

11.5. It was submitted that the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the

decisions in Balram Gupta (supra) and J.N. Srivastava (supra) is

misplaced, inasmuch as in those cases the withdrawal of voluntary

retirement was effected in accordance with the applicable rules and

within the permissible time frame. It was contended that the said

judgments do not dilute the mandatory nature of the statutory

requirement.

11.6. It was further submitted that the reliance placed on the

judgment of this Court in Birender Singh (supra) is misconceived, as

in the said case the request for withdrawal was made within the

W.P.(C)3029/2026 Page 6 of 17

permissible period prescribed under the Rules. It was contended that

the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the material factual distinction

and has erroneously applied the said decision to the facts of the

present case.

11.7. It was submitted that by permitting withdrawal of voluntary

retirement in the absence of compliance with the mandatory statutory

requirement, the Tribunal has effectively rewritten the provision

contained in Rule 43(6) of the CCS Rules, which is impermissible in

law and amounts to a jurisdictional error.

12. Contentions of the Respondent:

12.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent supported the

Impugned Order and submitted that the Respondent had sought

withdrawal of his request for voluntary retirement on 06.05.2024, i.e.,

prior to the effective date of retirement, and therefore, the employer-

employee relationship had not ceased at the relevant point of time. It

was contended that in such circumstances, the Respondent was

entitled to withdraw his request.

12.2. It was submitted that the Tribunal has rightly relied upon the

decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Balram Gupta (supra),

J.N. Srivastava (supra) and Shambhu Murari Sinha (supra), to

contend that an employee is entitled to withdraw a request for

voluntary retirement before it becomes effective, particularly where

there is a change in circumstances.

12.3. It was further submitted that the issue stands squarely covered

W.P.(C)3029/2026 Page 7 of 17

by the judgment of this Court in Birender Singh Ex DC (supra)

wherein this Court, while considering Rule 43(6) of the CCS Rules,

has held that withdrawal of voluntary retirement ought to be

permitted, and that the employer is required to act reasonably and not

arbitrarily in refusing such request.

12.4. It was further submitted that the law recognizes a degree of

flexibility in such matters, and where the withdrawal is sought prior to

the effective date of retirement and does not prejudice the

administration, the employer ought to adopt a pragmatic approach and

permit such withdrawal.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:

13. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced

on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record. Before

adverting to the rival contentions, it would be apposite to examine the

statutory framework governing voluntary retirement and withdrawal

thereof under the CCS Rules.

14. For ready reference, Rule 43(6) of the CCS Rules reads as

under:

"43 (6) A Government servant, who has elected to retire under this

rule and has given the necessary notice/intimation to that effect to the

appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his

election subsequently except with the specific approval of such

authority.

Provided that the request of withdrawal shall be made not less than

fifteen days before the intended date of voluntary retirement."

15. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision indicates that while a

government servant is entitled to seek voluntary retirement, the right

W.P.(C)3029/2026 Page 8 of 17

to withdraw such request is not absolute but is circumscribed by the

conditions expressly stipulated therein. Sub-rule (6) permits

withdrawal of a notice of voluntary retirement only with the specific

approval of the appointing authority, and the proviso further mandates

that such request must be made not less than fifteen days prior to the

intended date of voluntary retirement. These two requirements

constitute conditions precedent for a valid withdrawal.

16. The language employed in the aforesaid provision is couched in

mandatory terms. The use of the expression “shall”, both in relation to

the embargo on withdrawal and the requirement of a minimum notice

period, leaves little scope for discretion dehors the statutory

framework. The proviso prescribing a minimum period of fifteen days

is not merely procedural, but constitutes a substantive condition

governing the exercise of the right of withdrawal. Significantly, the

Rule does not contemplate any power of condonation or relaxation of

the said period.

17. In the present case, the intended date of voluntary retirement

was 08.05.2024, whereas the Respondent submitted the request for

withdrawal on 06.05.2024, i.e., merely two days prior to the intended

date. The statutory requirement of a minimum notice period of fifteen

days, as mandated under the proviso to Rule 43(6) of the CCS Rules,

was thus clearly not satisfied. It is also an admitted position that the

Respondent‟s request for voluntary retirement had already been

accepted by the competent authority vide Office Order dated

03.05.2024. Once the request stood accepted, the right to withdraw the

same could only be considered within the parameters prescribed under

W.P.(C)3029/2026 Page 9 of 17

the Rules.

18. At this stage, it would be apposite to examine the contents of

the Respondent‟s request dated 06.05.2024 seeking withdrawal of his

earlier application for voluntary retirement. The said application, in

material part, reads as follows:

“I applied for the VRS application because I was ill at that time. So,

my application of VRS should be quashed… and allow me to serve and

complete my 2 years of Duty.”

A careful perusal of the aforesaid application reveals that the

Respondent has merely stated, in a bald and unsubstantiated manner,

that he had applied for voluntary retirement on account of illness.

Significantly, there is no averment that the said condition had

improved, or that any material change in circumstances had intervened

warranting withdrawal of the request for voluntary retirement.

19. The application is conspicuously vague and bereft of material

particulars. No details of the alleged illness have been furnished, nor

has any supporting medical record been placed on record at any stage.

The request does not disclose any cogent or compelling reason

justifying the withdrawal of a consciously submitted request for

voluntary retirement, much less one that had already been accepted by

the competent authority. In service jurisprudence, particularly in the

context of withdrawal of voluntary retirement, the existence of a

demonstrable change in circumstances assumes significance. The

Respondent‟s application is wholly silent in this regard. Notably, the

application does not even assert that the circumstances which

allegedly prompted the request for voluntary retirement had ceased to

W.P.(C)3029/2026 Page 10 of 17

exist.

20. This aspect assumes greater significance when juxtaposed with

the averments made by the Respondent in the Original Application

filed before the Tribunal. In the said proceedings, the Respondent has

taken a materially different stand, alleging that he was suffering from

certain ailments, including hypertension, blood sugar and an eye

condition for which he underwent surgery in January 2024, and

further asserting that he was compelled to opt for voluntary retirement

on account of pressure from the staff of the hospital. However, none

of these assertions find mention in the withdrawal application dated

06.05.2024. The said application neither alleges coercion nor refers to

any pressure, harassment or assurance by the authorities. The

complete absence of these material pleas at the relevant time, coupled

with their subsequent introduction before the Tribunal, renders the

Respondent‟s case inconsistent and detracts from its credibility.

21. It is also pertinent to note that the Respondent submitted his

request for voluntary retirement on 09.02.2024, which came to be

accepted on 03.05.2024. Despite the passage of nearly three months,

no formal steps were taken by the Respondent to withdraw the said

request in accordance with law. The explanation sought to be

furnished in the Original Application, to the effect that he had orally

approached the authorities and was allegedly misled into believing

that his request would be taken care of, finds no reflection in any

contemporaneous record, including the withdrawal application dated

06.05.2024. The said plea, being unsupported by any material and

inconsistent with the written request, cannot be accepted at face value.

W.P.(C)3029/2026 Page 11 of 17

The belated submission of the withdrawal request, merely two days

prior to the intended date of retirement, without any cogent or

substantiated explanation, further weakens the Respondent‟s claim.

22. Even otherwise, the scheme of Rule 43(6) of the CCS Rules

does not contemplate an unstructured or unilateral right of withdrawal.

The provision explicitly mandates that withdrawal can be effected

only with the specific approval of the competent authority and subject

to the condition that such request is made not less than fifteen days

prior to the intended date of retirement. The language of the Rule is

peremptory and does not admit of any relaxation or condonation of the

prescribed period. The statutory framework, therefore, excludes

consideration of requests which do not satisfy these threshold

requirements.

23. It is also necessary to note that once a request for voluntary

retirement stands accepted by the competent authority, the employee

does not retain an unfettered or vested right to withdraw the same

merely because the effective date of retirement lies in futuro. The

acceptance of such request crystallizes the decision, and any

subsequent withdrawal can only be considered strictly within the

parameters prescribed under the governing statutory framework. In

other words, the right, if any, to seek withdrawal post-acceptance is

not absolute, but conditional and regulated by Rule 43(6) of the CCS

Rules.

24. In the present case, not only was the request for withdrawal

made in clear breach of the minimum period prescribed under the

W.P.(C)3029/2026 Page 12 of 17

proviso to Rule 43(6) of the CCS Rules, but there is also nothing on

record to indicate that the Respondent had sought permission of the

competent authority in the manner contemplated under the said

provision. The Tribunal, while granting relief to the Respondent, has

neither adverted to nor examined these mandatory statutory

requirements. In the absence of compliance with the conditions

precedent stipulated under Rule 43(6) of the CCS Rules, and in the

absence of any demonstrable change in circumstances, the

Respondent‟s claim does not merit acceptance either on facts or in

law.

25. It is, therefore, evident that the Respondent could not have

asserted any vested or enforceable right to seek withdrawal of his

request for voluntary retirement dehors the statutory framework. The

right of withdrawal, being circumscribed by Rule 43(6) of the CCS

Rules, is conditional and not absolute. In the absence of strict

compliance with the conditions prescribed therein, no legal

entitlement accrues in favour of the Respondent.

26. The Tribunal, however, proceeded on the premise that since the

Respondent had sought withdrawal prior to the effective date of

retirement, the same ought to have been permitted. This approach, in

the considered opinion of this Court, suffers from a fundamental error.

27. The mere fact that the request for withdrawal was made before

the effective date of retirement cannot, by itself, be determinative. The

statutory framework does not contemplate an unrestricted right to

withdraw up to the last date; rather, it specifically conditions such

W.P.(C)3029/2026 Page 13 of 17

right upon compliance with the minimum notice period prescribed

under the proviso to Rule 43(6) of the Rules.

28. By treating the timing of withdrawal with reference only to the

effective date of retirement and ignoring the statutory requirement of

fifteen days, the Tribunal has effectively diluted the mandate of the

Rule and rendered the proviso nugatory. If such interpretation were to

be accepted, the proviso prescribing a minimum period of fifteen days

would be rendered otiose, as withdrawal could then be sought at any

point prior to the effective date, thereby defeating the legislative

intent.

29. The reliance placed by the Tribunal on the decision of the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Balram Gupta (supra) requires closer

scrutiny. In the said case, the Supreme Court, while interpreting Rule

48-A of the CCS Rules, recognized that though a government servant

has the locus poenitentiae to withdraw a notice of voluntary retirement

before the intended date of its effectiveness, such withdrawal, in terms

of the statutory framework, remains subject to the approval of the

competent authority. Crucially, the Court held that the discretion to

grant or refuse such approval cannot be exercised arbitrarily, but must

be guided by reason, fairness and rationality. In the facts of that case,

the Supreme Court found that the employee had sought withdrawal

well before the effective date of retirement, had indicated a change in

circumstances, and that no prejudice had been caused to the

administration. It was in those circumstances that the refusal to grant

approval was held to be unsustainable. The said judgment, however,

cannot be read as dispensing with the statutory requirement of

W.P.(C)3029/2026 Page 14 of 17

approval or as conferring an unfettered right to withdraw a request for

voluntary retirement in derogation of the governing Rules.

30. Similarly, in J.N. Srivastava (supra) and Shambhu Murari

Sinha (supra), the Supreme Court recognized the principle that a

request for voluntary retirement, even if accepted, can be withdrawn

prior to the “effective date”, i.e., before the employee is actually

relieved from service. However, it is material to note that the said

decisions turned on the broader principle of locus poenitentiae and

were rendered in factual contexts where no specific statutory time-bar

akin to the fifteen-day requirement contained in the proviso to Rule

43(6) of the CCS Rules was either applicable or fell for consideration

in those cases. In the present case, however, the field is expressly

governed by the proviso to Rule 43(6) of the CCS Rules, which

mandates that a request for withdrawal must be made at least fifteen

days prior to the intended date of retirement. The said statutory

stipulation, being explicit and mandatory in nature, cannot be diluted

by reliance on general principles evolved in a different factual and

regulatory context. The aforesaid decisions, therefore, cannot be

construed as conferring an unfettered right of withdrawal in

derogation of the governing Rules.

31. The Tribunal has placed considerable reliance on the judgment

of this Court in Birender Singh (supra). A careful reading of the said

decision, however, indicates that while this Court adopted an

employee-centric and pragmatic approach in permitting withdrawal of

voluntary retirement, the same was nonetheless within the framework

of Rule 43(6) of the CCS Rules. The Court expressly noted that the

W.P.(C)3029/2026 Page 15 of 17

right to seek withdrawal is subject to two conditions, namely, that

such request must be made at least fifteen days prior to the intended

date of retirement and that it requires approval of the competent

authority, which cannot be withheld arbitrarily.

32. The distinguishing feature in the present case is that the

Respondent sought withdrawal of his request only two days prior to

the intended date of retirement, i.e., on 06.05.2024 for a retirement

effective from 08.05.2024. This is in clear breach of the mandatory

requirement contained in the proviso to Rule 43(6) of the CCS Rules.

In Birender Singh (supra), on the other hand, the request for

withdrawal was admittedly made well beyond the minimum period of

fifteen days prescribed under the Rules. The said judgment, therefore,

proceeded on a materially different factual footing.

33. While Birender Singh (supra) emphasizes that the competent

authority must adopt a reasonable and non-arbitrary approach while

considering such requests, the said principle operates only within the

bounds of the statutory framework. The judgment cannot be read as

diluting or dispensing with the express requirement of the proviso to

Rule 43(6) of the CCS Rules. The Tribunal, in the present case, has

erred in extending the ratio of Birender Singh (supra) to a situation

where the foundational statutory condition itself stood unfulfilled.

34. By permitting withdrawal of voluntary retirement in the

absence of compliance with the mandatory statutory requirement, the

Tribunal has, in effect, rewritten the provision contained in Rule 43(6)

of the CCS Rules. Such an approach is impermissible and amounts to

W.P.(C)3029/2026 Page 16 of 17

a jurisdictional error warranting interference in exercise of writ

jurisdiction. The Tribunal has thus failed to give effect to the express

statutory mandate and has proceeded on considerations dehors the

governing Rule.

35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the Impugned Order passed by the Tribunal

cannot be sustained in law, as the same is contrary to the express

statutory framework and is founded on a misapplication of binding

precedents.

CONCLUSION:

36. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is unable to sustain the

view taken by the Tribunal. The Impugned Order is liable to be set

aside, as the Tribunal has failed to give due effect to the mandatory

provisions contained in Rule 43(6) of the CCS Rules and has

erroneously permitted withdrawal of voluntary retirement in disregard

of the statutory prescription.

37. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is allowed in the

following terms:

i. The Impugned Order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.

4796/2024 is set aside;

ii. The Office Order dated 03.05.2024 issued by the Petitioners

accepting the Respondent‟s request for voluntary retirement is upheld;

iii. The Respondent shall be deemed to have validly retired from

W.P.(C)3029/2026 Page 17 of 17

service with effect from 08.05.2024;

iv. The Respondent shall be entitled only to such retiral benefits as

are admissible to him in accordance with law;

38. The Pending applications also stand closed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J.

AMIT MAHAJAN , J.

APRIL 15, 2026

jai/pal