Withdrawal Of VRS Permissible Before Effective Date; Consequential Benefits Barred By Estoppel If Post-Retirement Employment Availed: Chhattisgarh HC

A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal held that an employee can withdraw a notice of voluntary retirement any time before it becomes effective under Rule 67(4) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, however, he is estopped from claiming consequential service benefits if he has availed post-retirement benefits. Background Facts The employee was serving as a Chief Station Master at Dagori Railway Station. He submitted an application for voluntary retirement (VRS) on 17th February 2016. Later he clarified that his VRS should be considered only after a two-month period following the grant of benefits from the 7th Pay Commission. Subsequently, the employee applied to withdraw his VRS request on 12th May 2016 which was received on 16th May 2016. Also on the same day, the competent authority accepted his original VRS application, retiring him effective immediately. The employee filed an appeal challenging this, which was rejected. Then he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his original application. Therefore, he filed the writ petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court. It was contended by the employee that as per Rule 67 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, he had submitted a three-month notice for voluntary retirement on 17th February 2016, making the intended date of his retirement 17th May 2016. He applied to withdraw this VRS request on 12th May 2016, which was received by the railway administration on 16th May 2016, a day before his intended retirement. He contended that the Rule 67(4) permits the withdrawal of a VRS notice before the intended date of retirement. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Balram Gupta v. Union of India, he asserted that a notice of voluntary retirement can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective. On the other hand, the Union of India contended that the employee's voluntary retirement was formally accepted by the competent authority on 16th May 2016, and the order was circulated on the same day. They further argued that shortly after his retirement, the employee was engaged as an Automatic Ticket Vending Machine (ATVM) facilitator at Bhatapara Railway Station. As per a Railway Board circular, such post-retirement engagements are exclusively available only to retired railway employees. Therefore, the employee after voluntarily accepting a post-retirement engagement, could not now turn around and claim that he was still in service. Findings of the Court It was observed by the Court that Rule 67 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, permits a railway servant to seek voluntary retirement by giving a notice of three months. The employee submitted his notice on 17th February 2016, therefore, the intended date of retirement was 17th May 2016. It was found by the Court that the employee applied to withdraw his VRS request, which was received by the department a day before his intended retirement was to become effective. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Balram Gupta v. Union of India, it was held by the Court that a notice of voluntary retirement can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective. Consequently, the rejection of the employee's withdrawal request by the competent authority was illegal. However, it was also noted by the court that after the VRS was accepted, the employee was engaged as an Automatic Ticket Vending Machine (ATVM) facilitator which was a post-retirement position available to only retired railway employees. Therefore, by availing himself of this benefit, the employee was estopped from claiming consequential benefits like back wages for the period he was treated as retired. Thus, the order rejecting the application for withdrawal of VRS passed by the competent authority was set aside. However, the employee was held not entitled to any consequential benefits. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the employee was disposed of by the Division Bench. Case Name : M.L. Yadav vs. Union of India & Others Case No. : WPS No. 2078 of 2025 Counsel for the Petitioner : Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani and Shrijita Kesharwani, Advocates Counsel for the Respondents : Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General of India and Rishabh Dev Singh, Central Government CounselCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 110Click Here To Read/Download Order

Withdrawal Of VRS Permissible Before Effective Date; Consequential Benefits Barred By Estoppel If Post-Retirement Employment Availed: Chhattisgarh HC

Namdev Singh

Tags