IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2811 OF 2026 Dattaram Atmaram Mane .. Petitioner Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Through its Chairman & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Faujdar Ramnihar Vind, i/by Mr. Prashant Rane, Advocates for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM : GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. DATE : 22ND JUNE 2026. P.C. : 1. The Petitioner is a former employee of Respondent no.1-Life Insurance Corporation of India. By his letter dated 14th February 2025, the Petitioner sought voluntary retirement from service under the applicable Voluntary Retirement Scheme (“VRS”). The Competent Authority considered the request and by its communication dated 11th March 2025, accepted the Petitioner's application and permitted him to retire from service with effect from 30th May 2025, subject to compliance with the conditions stipulated therein, including recovery of the Corporation's dues and 1/4 13-WP-2811-2026.doc Dixit vacation of the official accommodation, if any. It was also clarified that settlement of the Petitioner's terminal benefits would be dealt with separately. Thereafter, having second thoughts, the Petitioner addressed a letter dated 6th May 2025 seeking withdrawal of his request for voluntary retirement. By communication dated 19th May 2025, the Competent Authority declined the request and informed the Petitioner that the conditions contained in the earlier communication dated 11th March 2025 would continue to govern his retirement. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 2. Mr. Vind, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has relied upon Rule 19(2A)(b)(iv) of the LIC of India (Staff) Rules, 1960. He submits that since the Petitioner's request for withdrawal was made before the intended date of retirement, the Competent Authority was obliged to consider the same and that the impugned communication dated 19th May 2025 is liable to be set aside as it does not disclose any reasons for rejecting the request. 3. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. Rule 19(2A)(b)(iv) does not confer upon an employee an absolute or indefeasible right to withdraw a request for voluntary retirement 2/4 13-WP-2811-2026.doc Dixit before the proposed date of retirement. On the contrary, the Rule expressly stipulates that once an employee has exercised the option to retire, withdrawal of such notice can be permitted only with the specific approval of the Competent Authority. In the present case, the Petitioner's application for voluntary retirement was accepted on 11th March 2025. Subsequently, before the effective date of retirement, the Petitioner requested withdrawal of his application. The communication dated 19th May 2025 clearly records that the Competent Authority considered the Petitioner's request and declined to grant approval for the withdrawal of the notice dated 6th May 2025. Once the Rule itself makes withdrawal contingent upon the approval of the Competent Authority, the Petitioner cannot claim such withdrawal as a matter of right. 4. The contention that the impugned communication is vitiated for want of elaborate reasons also deserves to be rejected. In the absence of any material demonstrating mala fides or violation of any statutory provision, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, would not sit in appeal over such an administrative decision or substitute its own view for that of the Competent Authority. The Petitioner's case is founded solely 3/4 13-WP-2811-2026.doc Dixit upon a subsequent change of mind which, by itself, does not create any enforceable legal right. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. [ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ] 4/4 13-WP-2811-2026.doc Dixit SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT Digitally signed by SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT Date: 2026.06.22 19:37:53 +0530