P. K. MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition was moved by Tarapada Bhattacharjee, Secretary of Panskura I Gram Panchayat, challenging the impugned order dated 21st February, 1989, whereby the Block Development Officer, Panskura I, District Midnapore, purported to terminate the service of the petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years with effect from 30th April, 1989, afternoon, as per the Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Scheme, 1985. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the writ petitioner in the instant writ petition that the petitioner had exercised option addressed to the Director of Panchayat by letter dated September 22, 1988, that the petitioner had exercised option previously before the appropriate authority by his letter dated February 21,1986 and wanted to retire on attaining the age of 58 years as per Scheme 5 of the Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Scheme for the Employees of Panchayats. The said clause 5 runs as follows:"5 (A) (i): Every employee willing to come under the, scheme wilt have to exercise option in the prescribed form as per Annexure I within 90 days from the date of issue of notice by, Head of Office immediately after circulation of the scheme. Provided that in the case of an employee who is on leave or on deputation or on Foreign Service or under suspension on the date of issue of the notice in this regard, the said option shall be exercised not later than 90 days of the date of his return from such leave, deputation, foreign service, or on resumption of duty after suspension, as the case may be. (ii) If the option is not exercised by any individual employee within the time limit referred to above, it will be deemed that he has not opted for coming under the scheme. (iii) An employee who was in service on 1st April, 1981 but could not exercise within the prescribed time limit due to retirement or death shall be deemed to have opted for coming under the scheme provided the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund was not paid to him or to his beneficiaries. (iv) The option once exercised shall be final. ( 3 ) IT may be noted that as per sub-clause (iv) of clause 5 such exercise of option in the scheme was treated to be final, of course before the said exercise of option is accepted finally by the respondent authorities. ( 4 ) MR. (iv) The option once exercised shall be final. ( 3 ) IT may be noted that as per sub-clause (iv) of clause 5 such exercise of option in the scheme was treated to be final, of course before the said exercise of option is accepted finally by the respondent authorities. ( 4 ) MR. Majibar Rahman, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that by his express desire by writing letter on September 22,1988, which was addressed to director of Panchayat, Govt. of West Bengal, the petitioner has rescinded the said option which he had exercised February 21, 1986, and expressed his willingness to continue as Secretary of Panskura I Gram Panchayat, till attaining the age of 60 years and wanted to withdraw the option previously exercised by him, which is Annexure 'a' to the present writ petition. ( 5 ) MR. Rahman further submitted that when the respondents did not answer to the said letter, the petitioner through his learned Advocate's letter dated December 29, 1988, requested the respondent to accept the earlier letter of option to be cancelled and/or withdrawn for the purpose of determination of the age of retirement at 66 years. ( 6 ) UNFORTUNATELY, those letters remained unattended but the Block Development Officer Panskura. I, by the impugned order dated 21st February, 1989, issued a notice of superannuation terminating the appointment of the writ petitioner on attaining age of superannuation from April 30, 1989, against which this writ petition was moved before G. N. Ray, J. on 24th April, 1989. Thereafter the matter was heard in part by His Lordship on 1st June, 1989 and on 30th June, 1989, after canceling the part heard the said learned Judge in presence of Mr. Soumitra Dasgupta, learned Advocate for the State, directed the respondents Gram Panchayat to pay the petitioner amount equivalent to one month's salary drawing prior to the passing of the impugned order of retirement. ( 7 ) MR. Rahman submits that the said order has also not been honoured either by the State Government or by the Panchayat. ( 8 ) AT the final hearing of this writ petition, Mr. Rahaman has referred to the provisions of Rule 34 of the West Bengal Gram Panchayat Administration Rules, 1981 which deals with superannuation and re-employment. ( 7 ) MR. Rahman submits that the said order has also not been honoured either by the State Government or by the Panchayat. ( 8 ) AT the final hearing of this writ petition, Mr. Rahaman has referred to the provisions of Rule 34 of the West Bengal Gram Panchayat Administration Rules, 1981 which deals with superannuation and re-employment. Clause (1) of rule 34 provides 60 years as the date of superannuation and clause (5) of the Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Scheme, 1985 for the employees of Panchayats provides for exercise of option referred to herein above. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Rahman, since in view of the uncontroverted testimony of the writ petitioner in the instant writ petition that the petitioner has rescinded the option referred to herein above, there was no scope fat passing the impugned order of termination of service by issuing the impugned order, as it has been done in the instant case. ( 10 ) AN affdavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the Block Development Officer and in paragraph 6 of the said affidavit the said deponent has referred to the records and did not admit anything what is in consistent with the records. In the said affidavit the deponent further stated that the procedure relating to application for the sanction of pensions and list of employees due to retire as noted in paragraph 34 under chapter VIII of the said scheme do not relate to continuation of service upto 60 years or revocation of option once exercised knowing fully well in the detailed context of the Death cum Retirement Benefit Scheme. ( 11 ) THE said stand taken in the affidavit, in my view, cannot be accepted by reason of application of simple law of contract. According to my view a contract is not complete until it is accepted, as in the present case. ( 12 ) IT is the admit in the present case that before acceptance of the option in terms of the scheme by the respondents, the petitioner by writing has requested cancellation of his exercise of option which has been referred to above and attended to by the respondents and as such in my opinion, legal position remains that the petitioner is to retire on attaining the age of superannuation in terms of clause 34 of the rules referred to hereinabove. ( 13 ) MR. ( 13 ) MR. Rahman in this context has referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Balaram Gupta. vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1987 SC 23154. In paragraph 10 of the said judgment the Supreme Court observed as follows: this question arose in the case of one Shri Satish Chandra, then a Judge in the High Court of Allahabad in Union of India vs. Sri Gopal Chondra Misra (1978)3 SCR 12 : ( AIR 1978 SC 694 ). There the second respondent Shri Satish Chandra wrote to the President of India, on May 7, 1977, intimating his resignation from the office of Judge of the Allahabad High Court with effect from 1st of August, 1977. On July 15 1977, he again wrote to the President, revoking his earlier communication, and commenced deciding matters in Court from July 16, 1977. On 1st of August,. 1977, the first respondent Shri Misra, an advocate of the said High Court filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution contending that the resignation of Shri Satish Chandra having been duly communicated to the President of India in accordance with Article 217 (1) proviso (a) of the Constitution was final and irrevocable, and that the continuance of said Shri Satish Chandra as a Judge of the High Court thereafter, was an unsurpation of public once. The High Court allowed the petition holding that Shri Satish Chandra was not competent to revoke his resignation letter. On appeal this Court held that the resigning office necessarily involved relinquishment of the once which implied cessation or termination of, or cutting as under from the office. A complete and effective act of resigning office is one which severs the link of the resignor with his once and terminates its tenure. In the context of Article 217 (1) this assumes the character of a decisive test, because the expression "resign his office" occurs in a proviso which excepts or qualifies the substantive clause fixing the once tenure of a Judge upto the age of 62 years. In the context of Article 217 (1) this assumes the character of a decisive test, because the expression "resign his office" occurs in a proviso which excepts or qualifies the substantive clause fixing the once tenure of a Judge upto the age of 62 years. It was further retired, that in the absence of a legal contractual or constitutional bar, as intimation in writing sent to the appropriate authority by an incumbent of his intention or proposal to resign his office/post from a future specified date, can be withdrawn by him at any time before it becomes effective i. e. before it effects termination of the tenure of the office/post, or employment. This general rule equally applies to Government servants and constitutional functionaries this Court reiterated. The other peculiar essence of Article 217, which was discussed, need not detain us in the facts of this case. On the principle of general law the offer to relinquishment could have been withdrawn by the appellant before the date it became effective if sub-rule (4) of Rule 48-A was not there. " ( 14 ) IN my opinion, in view of the aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court in Satish Chandra's case (supra) the respondent-authorities are bound to accept the letter of revocation and/or cancellation of option and the petitioner should be directed to retire on attaining age of 60 years. ( 15 ) IN the result, the writ petition succeeds. The petitioner will be entitled to continue in service until the petitioner attains the age of 60 years. ( 16 ) THE respondents are directed to comply with the interim order and allow the petitioner to join service within one month from communication of this order. ( 17 ) LET a plain copy of this order countersigned by the Asst. Register (Court) be given to the learned Advocate for the petitioner on his undertaking to apply for and obtain a certified copy of the same for communication to the respondent-authorities concerned for compliance. Petition allowed.