JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioner was working as Librarian in the District library at Raisen. By an application dated 16-7-1976 (Annexure-1) addressed to the Director of Public Instructions ( Respondent No 2 ), the petitioner requested for permission to retire from service with effect from 1st February 1977 on the ground that he had completed twenty years qualifying service and that he was not interested in continuing any longer in service. Thereafter the petitioner sent another application dated 20-12-1976 (Annexure-2) to the Director of Public Instructions by which he modified his earlier request and sought retirement with effect from 5th June 1977. The petitioner received no communication in reply from the respondents and he continued to remain in service even after 5th June 1977. The petitioner then sent another communication dated 1-7-1977 (Annexure-4) to the Director of Public Instructions stating clearly that the requested date of retirement i. e. 5th June 1977 having passed and no reply having been received by the petitioner, his earlier request for retirement had lapsed and become ineffective. He further added therein that he did not now want to seek early retirement and had decided to continue in service. Curiously enough, thereafter, by order No. Lib/d/77 /488 dated 11-7-1977 (Annexure-5), the petitioner was retired retrospectively with effect from 1-2-1977 under rule 42 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension)Rules, 1976, even though the petitioner was admittedly continuing in service after that date. It is this order (Annexure-5) of compulsory retirement which is challenged by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution, ( 2. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urges that the petitioners offer of retirement having lapsed when it was not accepted upto 5th June 1977, the date of retirement specified by the petitioner, nothing remained thereafter to enable its acceptance and retirement of the petitioner on the date of the impugned order (Annexure-5), Alternatively, it is also urged that in any event that order could not be made retrospective when the petitioner had admittedly continued in service after 1st February 1977, the date from which the order was made effective. Learned Government Advocate does not dispute that the impugned order could not be made retrospective. Learned Government Advocate does not dispute that the impugned order could not be made retrospective. However, he places reliance on sub-rule (2) of Rule 42 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 to contend that there was no power left with the petitioner to withdraw his offer of retirement once it was made, and that it was open to the Government to accept the same at any time, even after the date of intended retirement specified by the petitioner in his offer had expired. The decision in this case depends on the construction of sub-rule (2) of Rule 42. Having heard learned counsel, we are satisfied that the primary submission of the petitioner must be accepted and this petition allowed. ( 3. ) RULE 42 is as under :- "42. Retirement on completion of 20 /25 years qualifying service- A Government servant may be permitted to retire from service at any time after completing 20 years qualifying service provided that he shall give in this behalf a notice in writing to the appointing authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire or on payment by him of pay and allowances for the period by which the notice actually given by him falls short of three months. The appointing authority may also require a government servant to retire at any time after he has completed twenty five years qualifying service with the approval of the State Government; Provided that the appointing authority shall give in this behalf a notice in writing to the Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire or make payment to him of an amount equal to pay and allowances for the period for which the notice given to him falls short of three months : provided further that where the Government servant giving notice is under suspension, it shall be open to the appointing authority to withhold permission to such government servent to retire under this Rule, note 1 :-The appointing authority shall not ordinarily exercise powers under this provision unless it becomes necessary in the Public interest so to do; note 2 :-Regarding (taunting of the period for calculating pension for Which pay in lieu of notice is paid and for payment of pension during this period rule 36 (2)shall apply. Note 3 :-For the purposes of this rule the expression "appointing authority shall mean the authority which is Competent to make appointments to the service or post from which the Government servant retires, (2) A Government servant who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the necessary intimation to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his election subsequently except with the specific approval of Such authority on Consideration of the circumstances of the case to withdraw the notice given by him : provided that the request for withdrawal shall be prior to the intended date of his retirement. (3) Where the notice of retirement has been served by appointing authority on the government servant, it may be Withdrawn, if so desired for adequate reasons, provided that the Government servant Concerned is agreeable. " ( 4. ) SUB-RULE (1) of Rule 42 enables a Government servant to seek retirement on completing twenty years qualifying service, provided he gives at least three months notice in writing before the date on which he wishes to retire and he is permitted to do so. The expression permitted to retire* as also the proviso in sub-rule (1) clearly indicate that an express permission of the appointing authority is necessary to bring about the result of early retirement provided in sub rule (1 ). Another thing clear from sub rule (1) is that the notice to be given by the Government servant must specify the date on which he wishes to retire. This is obvious from the fact that the notice is required to be of at least three months before the date on which the Government servant wishes to retire. It follows necessarily that the permission of the appointing authority contemplated by sub rule (1) is required to be given prior to the intended date of retirement specified in the notice given by the Government servant, in order to bring about the result of retirement from that date, ( 5. ) SUB rule (2) then lays down that a Government servant having elected to retire under this rule and having given the necessary notice to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing bis election to retire except with the specific approval of the authority. The proviso therein says that the request for withdrawal by the Government servant shall be prior to the intended date of retirement. The proviso therein says that the request for withdrawal by the Government servant shall be prior to the intended date of retirement. The reason is obvious. Once the retirement has taken effect as a result of the Government servants option to retire having been accepted by grant of permission by the appointing authority, there can be no occasion to withdraw that option made by the Government servant. For this reason, the intended date of retirement specified by the Government servant in his notice fixes the outer limit of the period available to the Government servant to withdraw his option to retire. The scope of sub rule (2) must necessarily be confined to cover only these cases where the retirement is to become effective from the intended date of retirement specified in the notice given by the Government servant under sub-rule (1) by grant of the requisite permission prior to that date. It can have no application to a case where the retirement does not become effective from the intended date specified in the notice for want of its acceptance by grant of the requisite permission prior to that date. Where the requisite permission to retire has not been granted by the appointing authority before the intended date of retirement specified by the Government servant in bis notice, the notice lapses on expiry of that date for want of its acceptance within the available time. The option to retire early exercised by the Govern-ment servant having lapsed in this manner, there remains no such option after that date to enable its acceptance. A fortiori there is no need thereafter for its withdrawal by the Government servant. The retirement under Rule 42 at the instance of the Government servant cannot be brought about from any date other than that specified in the notice given by him. In our view, this is the only reasonable construction of sub-rule (2 ). The construction suggested by the learned Government Advocate, if accepted, would permit a state of uncertainty to exist once a Government servant has given such a notice even though it has not been accepted before the intended date of retirement specified therein and that, in turn, can also lead to arbitrary actions and several incongruities. The construction suggested by the learned Government Advocate, if accepted, would permit a state of uncertainty to exist once a Government servant has given such a notice even though it has not been accepted before the intended date of retirement specified therein and that, in turn, can also lead to arbitrary actions and several incongruities. The absurd results likely to follow if the other view is accepted, also support the conclusion reached by us on the basis of the plain meaning of the provision. The view taken by us also makes a harmonious construction of both these sub-rules. ( 6. ) THE result is that the respondents had no power to act on the petitioners notice under Rule 42 (1) after 5th June 1977, the intended date of retirement specified by the petitioner in his notice and that the notice having lapsed after expiry of that date, the impugned order Annexure-5, dated 11-7-1977, could not have been passed in exercise of the power contained in Rule, 42, that order is, therefore, quashed. ( 7. ) THE petition is allowed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 100, if certified. The outstanding amount of the security deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.