JUDGMENT K.J. Shetty, C.J. - By this petition a Class II employee of Rail - way seeks direction to opposite parties to determine his pension and other benefits consequent to his voluntary retirement. Since the relief is dependant on the claim of petitioner that he voluntarily retired on 1st Sept. 1985 after expiry of the date mentioned in the notice dated 11th May, 1985 served on opposite parties on 13th May, 1985 it is appropriate to deal with it, at the outset, as is seriously contested. It is not disputed that voluntary retirement of such an employee is governed by circulars issued by opposite parties in 1977 and 1981, copies of which have been filed as Annexures 2 and 3 to the writ petition. It is further not disputed that an employee who has completed 20 years of service is entitled to exercise this option. But what is claimed is that the opposite parties having not allowed the application of petitioner he cannot be deemed to have voluntarily retired. It is also averred that petitioner was absent from 22nd May, 1985 and his application for leave from 22nd May 1985 was not allowed. 2. The Railways scheme for voluntary retirement appears to have been enforced in 1977. It permitted a railway servant who had put in not less than 20 years of service to retire by giving notice of three months of the scheme provided that a notice of voluntary retirement after completion of 20 years qualifying service will requireacceptance by the appointing authority. Such acceptance may be given generally except those (a) in which disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated against the Railway servant concerned for the imposition of major penalty and the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case is of the view that the imposition of the penalty or removal or dismissal from service would be warranted in the case or (b) in which prosecution is contemplated or may have been launched in a court of law against the railway servant concerned. If it is proposed to accept the notice of voluntary retirement even in such cases, approval of the Minister-in-charge should be obtained in regard to Group 'A' and Group 'B' Railway servants and that the General Managers in the case of Group 'C' and Group 'D' railway servants. If it is proposed to accept the notice of voluntary retirement even in such cases, approval of the Minister-in-charge should be obtained in regard to Group 'A' and Group 'B' Railway servants and that the General Managers in the case of Group 'C' and Group 'D' railway servants. Even where the notice of voluntary retirement given by a railway servant requires acceptance by the appointing authority, the railway servant giving notice may presume acceptance and the retirement shall be effective in terms of the notice unless the competent authority issues an order to the contrary before the expiry of the period of notice. 3. In 1981 this clause was further clarified. The requirement of acceptance was given up except in cases of suspended employees. It further entitled employee to withdraw the notice before expiry of three months. The order removed doubt by providing that in such cases it was not necessary to observe formality of issuing letter of acceptance and the services of such employee shall be deemed to have come to an end automatically after expiry of period mentioned in notice. Even in respect of suspended employees the order provides that if the order refusing to accept the notice is not given-within period of notice then the suspended employee shall be deemed to have retired. 4. Voluntary retirement by virtue of these orders is a right of employee which can be exercised by him after completion of 20 years service. It cannot be curtailed or the consent cannon be withheld except in circumstances mentioned therein. The expression 'such acceptance may be generally given in all cases except..' in clause (vii) of 1977 Order does not leave any option with appointing authority to refuse it except in the two mentioned therein. It stands strengthened by 1981 Order the doubt and render the right of a railway servant to retire voluntarily absolute. The word 'may' in the context has to be understood as 'shall'. In a country where unemployment is rampant if an employee for any reason seeks retirement then, normally, rather always, it should be welcome except of course where it is to avoid facing disciplinary proceedings etc. And that appears to be spirit and content of 1977 Order. The doubt if any was further dispelled in 1981. In a country where unemployment is rampant if an employee for any reason seeks retirement then, normally, rather always, it should be welcome except of course where it is to avoid facing disciplinary proceedings etc. And that appears to be spirit and content of 1977 Order. The doubt if any was further dispelled in 1981. A combined reading of two orders leaves no room for doubt that no order accepting request of voluntary retirement is necessary except in cases of suspension or other proceedings. It is automatic. 5. Judged in this light it is apparent that the right exercised by petitioner seeking voluntary retirement could not be curtailed by asserting that it was not accepted by the appointing authority. Since no proceedings were pending against petitioner and he admittedly had completed 27 years of service on 11th May, 1985 when notice of voluntary retirement was given, it seems to us, no express order of consent by appointing authority was called for. 6. Even assuming that such a consent was necessary, we may now examine whether there was any valid reason to withhold it. It appears the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement earlier on 27th September, 1984. His request was accepted on 24th December, 1984 and he was permitted to retire from 1st February, 1985. But prior to it the petitioner withdrew his notice. He also met the authority concerned and his request to withdraw the notice was accepted on 10th January, 1985. He, thereafter gave a further notice on 10th May, 1985 requesting for voluntary retirement from lst September, 1985. It was then not accepted. The request was turned down on 17th June, 1985. Apparently for no valid reason. None has been disclosed in counter-affidavit. It could have been refused only if any disciplinary proceeding had been pending against petitioner or any criminal prosecution was going on or petitioner had been suspended. In the absence of any such reason it cannot be said that request of petitioner did not fall in the expression, 'may be generally accepted.' The letter dated 17th June, 1985, therefore, was not in accordance with the order. The earlier offer of voluntary retirement or the withdrawal of it could not alter or affect automatic retirement permitted under the aforesaid orders specially, when the rule or order does not debar an employee to exercise that right more than once. 7. The earlier offer of voluntary retirement or the withdrawal of it could not alter or affect automatic retirement permitted under the aforesaid orders specially, when the rule or order does not debar an employee to exercise that right more than once. 7. It is next urged for the opponents that since petitioner was absent without leave on the date he exercised option for voluntary retirement it was not in accordance with law. The argument appears to be without any substance. In paragraphs 5 and 6 it is asserted that petitioner applied for casual leave from 1st May, 1985 till 9th May, 1985 which was sanctioned by Station Superintendent, Mathura. Further- he extended leave till 21st May, which was also allowed. These allegations have not been denied in the counter-affidavit. Alongwith rejoinder affidavit, petitioner has also filed an extract of attendance register of Central Railway which shows that petitioner was on leave from 2nd May to 21st May, 1985. It cannot, therefore, be said that option was exercised at the time when petitioner was on unauthorised absence. Dispute has also been raised in respect of petitioner's leave for the period subsequent to the notice for voluntary retirement. Assuming that petitioner was not sanctioned leave for the notice period, it makes little difference on the right of retirement. He may at best be disentitled to salary for the period he was absent. Moreover, since no action appears to have been initiated because of absence of leave from 22nd May, 1985 the notice for voluntary retirement became operative from 1st September, 1985. 8. From the facts discussed above it is apparent that the authorities adopted a negative approach in considering the application of petitioner seeking voluntary retirement after having rendered 27 years of service. Why was this request opposed in absence of any circumstance is indeed beyond comprehension. The unreasonable attitude adopted by the authorities which was warranted in the circumstances has resulted inordinate 'delay in granting pension and other benefits to petitioner. The petitioner had to approach this Court for relief and remedy which could have been easily granted to him without any delay. 9. In the result petition succeeds and is allowed. A direction is issued to opposite parties to treat petitioner as having retired from 1st September, 1985. The petitioner had to approach this Court for relief and remedy which could have been easily granted to him without any delay. 9. In the result petition succeeds and is allowed. A direction is issued to opposite parties to treat petitioner as having retired from 1st September, 1985. They shall also finalise the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner and disburse the same within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is produced. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs which is assessed at Rs.l,000/- (Rupees one thousand).