U.L. Bhat, C.J.— We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Meghalaya. 2. The petitioner worked under the Meghalaya Government and its predecessor-Government since 24. 12. 52. He was promoted as Sub-Engineer Grade I with effect from 29. 12. 71. There was dispute between him and the Government regarding the scale of pay and actual pay to which he was titled. He gave repeated representations and ultimately sent Annexure 7, letter dated9. 10. 80 to the Chief Engineer & Secretary, PWD (R&B), Meghalaya, Shillong where he set out his claim for higher scale of pay and higher pay and complained about the callous inaction on his representations. He ended his representation thus : "If however Govt. finds it difficult to accede to my prayer, I may kindly be allowed to retire from service with effect from 1.12. 80." He received a reply dated 22. 11. 80 of the Government as well as an order of the same date. They are Annexures 8 and 9. respectively. In Annexure 8 the Chief Engineer & Secretary told him that "Government have no objection to your going on retirement with effect from 1. 12. 80." By Annexure 9, order, the Government stated that in pursuance of the notice contained in the petitioner's letter dated 9. 10. 80 for premature retirement in accordance with the provision of clause i;c) of FR 56, the petitioner "will retire from service with effect from the afternoon of 31st November, 1980." By letter dated 9. 1. 81 (Annexure 10) the petitioner brought to the notice of the Chief Engineer & Secretary that he had urged only his grievances in his repre­sentation dated 9. 10. 80 and pointed out that the order of premature retire­ment in fact amounted to punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on him and stated that he had not accepted the same. This was followed by subsequent representations. However, since no remedial action was taken on his repeated representations, he filed the writ petition in Civil Rule No. 942 of 1985. Prior to that he filed Civil Rule No. 791 of 1984 claiming pension and other benefits. We have heard both the petitions together. 3. This was followed by subsequent representations. However, since no remedial action was taken on his repeated representations, he filed the writ petition in Civil Rule No. 942 of 1985. Prior to that he filed Civil Rule No. 791 of 1984 claiming pension and other benefits. We have heard both the petitions together. 3. FR 56 (c) states as follows : "(c) Any Government servant may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority, retire from service after he has attained the age of fifty years or has completed 25 years of service, whichever is earlier." 4. A plain reading of the Rule indicates that the offer on the part of the Govt. servant must be voluntary, conscious^ willing, deliberate and unconditional and he must give notice of not less than three months. It must be an act of free choice on his part and without compulsion, physical or otherwise; it must be an act with design and intention. It shall not also be conditional. The notice in writing must be appreciated in its own setting and background and all the recitals there of must be read and given due weight. One sentence cannot be torn out of its context and upheld up as amounting to an offer of voluntary retirement. 5. The petitioner's letter dated 9.10.80 cannot be said to be a voluntary, conscious, deliberate or unconditional offer to retire. The letter was preceded by several representations over the years. In the letter he stated that be had served the Government for 29 years but his pay as Sub-Engineer according to the 1971 scale of pay had not been fixed, that thereafter another two revisions took place, that on that day he was drawing pay of Rs. 200/- p. m. which was less than the pay of a Grade IV employee and that no relief was granted to him in spite of several representations. There can be no doubt that the main thrust of his letter dated 9.10.80 was a desperate plea for consideration of his earlier representations for correct fixation of his pay. At the end of his letter he stated that if the Govt. find it difficult to accede to his prayer. "I may kindly be allowed to retire with effect from 1st December, 1980." 6. At the end of his letter he stated that if the Govt. find it difficult to accede to his prayer. "I may kindly be allowed to retire with effect from 1st December, 1980." 6. Considering only the last sentence in the letter, it could at best mean that the offer to retire was conditional on the Government's failure to grant his prayer. The Government have no case that after receiving the letter the Government considered his demand for refixation of his pay, arrived at a decision against him and communicated the decision to him. Therefore, this letter cannot be said to contain a voluntary expression of an unconditional desire to retire prematurely. Reading the letter as a whole, it cannot be under­stood as a deliberate offer of premature retirement. In a desperate situation he was protesting against the callous attitude of the Government, using strong words of indignation. It can be interpreted as a protest and nothing more. In a parallel situation this Court has held similarly in Bipin Chandra Thakuria vs. State of Assam & others, (1988) 1 GLR 226 [1988 (1) GLJ 40]. The notice is also not in accordance with Rule 56 (c) inasmuch as it does not give three months' notice. The petitioner received only a reply dated 22.11.80 indicating that the Government have no objection to his going on retirement. The order of premature retirement followed on the same day. It may be mentioned that within three months from the date of his letter dated 9.10.80 the petitioner sent another representation dated 9.1.81 objecting to the order of premature retirement alleging that it was based on misconstruction of his letter dated 9.10.80. This letter would make it clear that his demand was for refixation of his pay. 7. In the circumstances, we are inclined to agree with the petitioner's contention that the letter dated 9.10.80 could not have been treated as a notice of premature retirement from service within the meaning of FR 56 (c) and the Government was clearly in serious error in accepting the same as an offer of premature retirement. 8. Both the Civil Rules are disposed of as follows : (1) The order dated 22.11.80 passed by the Government of Meghalaya retiring the petitioner from service with effect from the afternoon of 31st November, 1980 is quashed. 8. Both the Civil Rules are disposed of as follows : (1) The order dated 22.11.80 passed by the Government of Meghalaya retiring the petitioner from service with effect from the afternoon of 31st November, 1980 is quashed. (2) It shall be deemed that the petitioner continued to be in service continuously from K42.80 to 30.6.84,the date of his actual superannuation. (3) The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits including arrear of pay flowing from this judgment by proper fixation of his pay in accordance with law, if it has not already been done. (4) The respondents are directed to ensure fixation of pay and payment of all dues to the petitioner including pension and other retire­ment benefits, if any, without any delay. This shall be done within three months from today. Parties are to bear their own costs.