JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. The petitioner, an erstwhile employee of the Hindustan Fertiliser Corporation Ltd, a Government of India Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), has assailed the action of the Corporation in holding that he has voluntarily retired from the services of the Corporation. By the present application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, he has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari / order or orders/direction or directions to the Corporation to treat him to be continuing in service till the date of his superannuation or till he attains the age 60 and to quash the impugned order (Annexure-9) whereby his aforesaid alleged voluntary retirement was given effect. 2. The factual position is almost undisputed. The Corporation circulated a Scheme amongst its employees called 'The Voluntary Retirement Scheme' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') giving them the option of voluntarily retiring from the service of the Corporation on receiving certain benefits. The last date for exercise of the option was fixed to be 31st January, 1989. The petitioner exercised this option on 27th January, 1989. He, however, sent another letter on 2nd February, 1989 withdrawing his option for retirement. By order dated 30th March, 1989 a functionary of the Corporation intimated the petitioner that his option for voluntarily retirement exercised on 27th January, 1989 has been accepted and that the petitioner was to be relieved on 3rd April, 1989. This order described as a memorandum and annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ application is impugned as aforesaid. 3. The case of the petitioner is that it was not open to the Corporation to act on the option exercised on 27th January, 1989 after the same was withdrawn on 2nd February, 1989. Since there was no option available to be accepted on 30th March, 1989, the purported action of the Corporation holding that the petitioner was relieved from service on 3rd April, 1989 and not in the services of the Corporation thereafter was unauthorised. It is inter alia stated that the Corporation is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, the action was violative of the protections available to the petitioner as a civil servant. It is inter alia stated that the Corporation is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, the action was violative of the protections available to the petitioner as a civil servant. The Corporation on the other hand has taken a stand that the writ application was not maintainable as in essence the petitioner wanted enforcement of a contract for personal services. Reliance has been placed for this purpose on several decisions of the Supreme Court. It may be noticed that in the counter affidavit filed there was some amount of dispute that the Corporation was not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. At the time of hearing of the writ application, this contention was abandoned, and, therefore, there is no dispute to the position that the petitioner was an employee of the Corporation which is State within the meaning of Article 12 and held a civil post. We do not propose to enter into the main plank of the contention of the Corporation relating to the question as to whether the petitioner was praying for enforcement of a contract for personal services. The question loses significance in view of the fact that the action of the Corporation is interdicted on account of its purporting to act on the option letter for retirement which was withdrawn by the petitioner before any action thereon was taken by the former. Since the action per se is not authorised in law, the act of the Corporation in directing cessation of employment of the petitioner is clearly arbitrary and violative of Article 14. 4. Equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies: one belongs to the rule of law in a republic, while the other to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. When an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14, which strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness. The principle of reasonableness is an essential element of equality. An act which is not right and just and fair is arbitrary and violates Article 14. (See Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, ). 5. The option did not become effective, the moment it was exercised. The Corporation had the right to reject any option offered. The principle of reasonableness is an essential element of equality. An act which is not right and just and fair is arbitrary and violates Article 14. (See Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, ). 5. The option did not become effective, the moment it was exercised. The Corporation had the right to reject any option offered. In fact the acceptance was made on 30th March, 1989. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner had the right to withdraw the option, which he exercised. Where by a unilateral act of exercising option for retirement, the service cannot be given up, the general principle is that the tender of option becomes operative and effective when the same is accepted. This principle was highlighted by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Gopal Chandra Misra and Others, ) 6. Judged in the background, the impugned order in Annexure-9 cannot stand and is, therefore quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all admissable service benefits conseqent upon the nullification of Annexure-9. 7. The writ application is allowed, but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs P.C. Misra, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Allowed