Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bohar Singh vs . on 23 April, 2015
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 981/2001
Bohar Singh
Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Anr.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 981/2001 Bohar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Date of order : 23.4.2015 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Mr. H.S.Sidhu, for the petitioner.
Ms. Sweta Bora, for the respondents.
<><><> By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the legality and validity of the order Annexure P-3 dated 28.11.2000, whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired upon completing 25 years of qualifying service.
The petitioner's grievance is that he has submitted an application Annexure P-1 seeking voluntary retirement on 1.7.2000. He was called for interview in relation to the said application by letter dated 7.9.2000 but neither any order was passed on his application nor was its rejection communicated to the petitioner and thus it is to be assumed that there was a deemed acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement. The petitioner claims that by not accepting the application for voluntary retirement and instead compulsorily retiring the petitioner, the respondents have acted beyond jurisdiction.
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 981/2001 Bohar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
2 However, upon a query being put, learned counsel for the petitioner candidly conceded that no difference in service condition would entail upon the petitioner because of the order of compulsory retirement i.e. to say even if the petitioner is deemed to be voluntary retired from 1.7.2000 then too no difference in service conditions and in the post retiral benefits would accrue to the petitioner as compared to what he received pursuant to the order of compulsory retirement.
The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition wherein it is mentioned that the application made for voluntary retirement by the petitioner was forwarded to the authorities concerned but by that time the process for his compulsory retirement had already been initiated and thus the application for voluntary retirement was of no consequence whatsoever.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it is manifest that the exercise which the petitioner wants this Court to undertake is purely academic in nature looking to the fact that even if the order of compulsory retirement is quashed, the necessary consequence even as per the petitioner's admitted case would be that he would be deemed to have been voluntarily retired from 1.7.2000. No difference in service conditions or terminal benefits of the petitioner in S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 981/2001 Bohar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
3 either situation. Hence, this Court need not go into the question of correctness or otherwise of Annexure P-3. At best the petitioner could have claimed re-employment had he been voluntarily retired, but the fact now remains that the petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation and thus cannot be re- employed.
The writ petition has been rendered infructuous and is dismissed as such. No costs.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.