Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37211 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 64625 of 2014 Petitioner :- Ashfaq Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava,Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui,Pushkar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,K. Shahi,Pranav Mishra Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri K. Shahi, learned counsel for respondents, however, Sri Pranav Mishra, Advocate is not present. 2. This is another example where the petitioner may have a good case, if not is confronted with poor drafting. 3. The order dated 10.06.2014, whereby Committee of Management of respondent Madarsa has accepted application for Voluntary Retirement of petitioner was challenged by way of amendment in the year 2024, though this writ petition was filed in the year 2014 only on following two additional grounds :- "H. Because averment and alleged voluntarily retirement dated 30.06.2014 is due to maal practice and unconstitutional because no application for voluntarily retirement/resignation has been given by the petitioner with his own consent itself clear from letter dated 10.04.2014 of respondent no.6 which speak the order dated 10.06.2014 is procured and illegal. I. Because the impugned order dated 10.06.2014 and its approval are unconstitutional." 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he is engaged subsequently and that any order for accepting voluntary retirement would come into force when Board of Madarsa has accepted it, however, in present case there is no order of respondent Board of Madarsa. 5. He further submits that there is even no provision of voluntary retirement in Madarsa according to relevant provisions as applicable in the year 2014. 6. Learned counsel for respondents submits that order dated 10.06.2014 was not challenged initially when this writ petition was filed in the year 2014 and since petitioner is now aged about 70 years, therefore, no relief could be granted to him since he has attained age of superannuation on 30.06.2015 whereas his voluntary retirement was accepted on 10.06.2014. None appeared on behalf of Board of Madarsa. 7. I have considered above submissions and as referred above, petitioner may have a good case if he has challenged the order dated 10.06.2014 at the stage of filing of this writ petition, however, it appears that on basis of a legal advice, an amendment was made in the year 2024 i.e. at a belated stage. 8. Court finds that petitioner has a case that since his voluntary retirement was not approved by the Board of Madarsa and that he has already filed an objection to his application within a very short period i.e. 06.05.2014 (application for VRS was filed on 25.05.2014), but at this stage, relief sought that he may be allowed to work till age of superannuation cannot be granted. So far as any effect on pension is concerned, pleadings are silent on it. 9. Court is of opinion that order dated 10.06.2014 was challenged after about 10 years of filing of this writ petition, therefore, at this stage, to grant any relief would be allowing the petitioner to get advantage of shortcomings in pleadings. 10. In view of above, petition lacks merit, hence, dismissed. Order Date :- 17.3.2025/Sinha_N. Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad