Honble CHOPRA, J.— This writ petition is directed against the order An-nexure-3 passed by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be voluntarily retired from service with effect from the date, he is relieved from his duty. In pursuance of this order Annexure-3, the petitioner has been relieved from duty with effect from 31.5.1986 vide order Annexure-5 dated 31.5.1986 passed by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Doongarpur. (2) The contention of the petitioner is that he sought voluntary retirement initially vide his application dated 22.10.1983 with effect from 1.5.1984 on account of certain family circumstances but when no acceptance of his voluntary retirement was received upto 1.5.1984, he continued the service. Thereafter, he moved one more application in the month of May 1985 for being granted voluntary retirement with effect from 15.7.1985 but when that too was not accepted in time, he continued in service but all of a sudden, on 4.4.1986, an order came from the Chief Engineer that he has been voluntarily retired from service with effect from the date, he is relieved from his duty. According to the petitioner, this was no at all an acceptance of his proposal but it was a fresh proposal and therefore, by rejecting this fresh proposal, he submitted a counter proposal that if they want to retire him voluntarily then they should do so with effect from 31.3.1987 when he completes 28 years of his service. His counter proposal was not accepted and he was retired voluntarily from service with effect from 31.5.1986. (3) It was contended that in the order Annexure 3 dated 4.4.1986 whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be retired voluntarily from Govt. service from the date he is relieved from duty, one of the conditions of his retirement was production of No-Dues Certificate. According to the petitioner, No Dues Certificate has been issued in his favour on 17.12.1990 and, therefore, he can be treated as retired from the service at best with effect from 17.12.1990 when No Dues Certificate was issued in his favour and not prior to that. That also is his alternative plea. According to the petitioner, No Dues Certificate has been issued in his favour on 17.12.1990 and, therefore, he can be treated as retired from the service at best with effect from 17.12.1990 when No Dues Certificate was issued in his favour and not prior to that. That also is his alternative plea. His main plea is that since his resignation was not accepted in time, he continued to be in service and, therefore, he should be allowed to be continued in service till he attains the age of superannuation and thereafter, all retiral benefits should be paid to him. (4) According to the petitioner, the Pension Department of the Govt. of Rajasthan has also raised an objection vide its letter dated 3.2.1987 that how the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was accepted with effect from 31.5.1986 and on that objection, the Executive Engineer sought instructions from the Chief Engineer vide his letter dated 16.2.1987. The petitioner also submitted a representation (Annexure-8) on 23.2.1987 against his retirement with effect from 31.5.1986 but no reply was received and, therefore, on 7.3.1987, he filed an application for rejoining the duty and that was inwarded but he was not allowed to work. The Superintending Engineer also wrote a letter (Annexure 12) on 26.3.1987 to the Chief Engineer seeking his guidance in the matter. Thereafter, the petitioner further filed a representation (Annexure 13) on 10.2.1988 but that too has not been replied. The Executive Engineer also wrote a letter (Annexure 14) on 13.4.1988 to the Chief Engineer seeking further instructions. However, the petitioner served a notice for demand of justice vide Annexure-15 dated 20.9.1989 and, thereafter, he filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as SB. Civil Writ Petition No. 1957 of 1991 (Tulsiram vs. State of Raj.), in which all the facts which are contained in this writ petition were alleged and the reliefs which are sought in this writ petition were also sought through that writ petition. However, that writ petition was decided by a learned single Judge of this Court vide his Order dated 25.4.1991, whereby the learned single Judge has directed the Department to decide the representation Annexure-16 dated 5.12.1990 filed by the petitioner after affording him an opportunity of being heard and it was left open that if the petitioner is aggrieved by that order, he can file a fresh writ petition before this Court. (5) In pursuance of that order, the petitioner was called for personal hearing and he was granted personal hearing. He submitted his written submissions. However, vide order Annexure-22 dated 2/22.1.1992, the aforesaid representation Annexure-16 dated 15.12.1990 has been rejected and his voluntary retirement from service with effect from 31.5.1986 has been sustained and, therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming that the order Aunexure-22 is a non-speaking order. The principles of natural justice has not been followed. The contentions that were raised by him in his written submissions as also in his Representation have not been considered and a mechanical order without non-application of mind has been passed rejecting his representation and, therefore, his writ petition be allowed and he be treated to be- in continuous service. However, in the alternative, it has been pleaded that he can be retired only from the day No Dues Certificate was issued in his favour. (6) A return has been filed on behalf of the respondents, in which it has been claimed that the petitioners application for voluntary retirement can be accepted at any time. Moreover, once the petitioner submitted his application for voluntary retirement and when he did not receive any adverse order, he was required to cease to work of his own accord on the expiry of the period of notice. Voluntary retirement in such matters is automatic. According to the respondents, vide order Annexure-3, no such condition was placed that he can only be retired from service, if No Dues Certificate is produced by him. It was therefore, contended that the voluntary retirement of the petitioner with effect from 31.5.1986 is absolutely valid and proper and it requires no interference. (7) A rejoinder to the reply has been filed in which almost same grounds have been asserted and reiterated which have been taken in the writ petition. (8) I have heard Mr. Vinod Purohit, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shanker Mal Singhvi, the learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents and have carefully gone through the record of the case. (9) It was contended by Mr. Vinod Purohit, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that when the petitioner has offered to retire from a particular date and when he has not been retired from that date, the State Govt. cannot choose a dated of its own accord to voluntarily retire him from service. (9) It was contended by Mr. Vinod Purohit, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that when the petitioner has offered to retire from a particular date and when he has not been retired from that date, the State Govt. cannot choose a dated of its own accord to voluntarily retire him from service. He has submitted that retiring the petitioner voluntarily vide order Annexure-3 dated 4.4.1986 is a fresh proposal and if the petitioner does not accept that proposal, the State Govt. has no authority to retire him voluntarily as has been done vide order Annexure-3 read with Order Annexure-5. (10) Rule. 244 (1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules deals with cases of voluntarily/optional retirement and r. 244 (2) deals with the cases of compulsory retirement. R. 244(1) reads as under: — "R. 244 (1) —Optional retirement on completion of 20 years qualifying service (a) A Government servant may, after giving at least 3 months previous notice in writing to the Appointing Authority, retire from service on the date on which he completes 20 years of qualifying service or attains the age of 45 years whichever is earlier or any date thereafter to be specified in the notice: Provided that it shall be open to the Appointing Authority to withhold permission to retire a Govt. servant: (i) who is under suspension; (ii) in whose case disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated for the imposition of a major penalty and the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case is of the view that such disciplinary proceedings might result in imposition of the penalty of removal or dismissal from service; (iii) in whose case prosecution is contemplated or may have been launched in a court of law; (b) A Govt. servant who has given notice for seeking retirement under clause (a) of this sub-rule, may presume acceptance of the notice of retirement and the retirement shall be effective in terms of the notice automatically unless an order in writing to the contrary has been issued by the competent Authority and served upon the Govt. servant before the expiry of the period of the notice. servant before the expiry of the period of the notice. (c) If a Government servant seeks retirement under this sub-rule while he is on leave not due, without returning to duty, the retirement shall take effect from the date of commencement of the leave not due and the leave salary paid in respect of such leave shall be recovered from him. (d) A Government servant who seeks voluntary retirement under clause (a) of this sub-rule shall be entitled to a weightage of a 5 years qualifying service which shall be given as an addition to the qualifying service actually rendered by him. The grant of weightage upto 5 years shall, however, be subject to the following conditions: — In respect of Govt. Servant governed by Pension Rules: (i) The service qualifying for retirement benefits shall be enhanced by the addition of five years in such cases. The resultant length of service after taking into account the addition of notional service shall in no case be more than 33 years qualifying service or the qualifying service, the Govt. servant concerned could have counted had he retired on attainment of superannuation age, whichever is less. (ii) In cases where qualifying service is increased under (i) above, the emoluments as defined in Rule 250 (C) of the Rajasthan Service Rules which the Government servant was receiving immediately before the date of retirement shall be taken into account for the purpose of calculation of pension and gratuity. (iii) In respect of Govt. servants governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme : Government Contribution, (bonus and special contribution) shall be enhanced by the amount which would have accrued by the addition of five years notional service. (iv) The notional contribution shall be added on the basis of the amount of subscription made immediately before the date of retirement without subscribing to the fund on or after the date of his retirement. (v) The resultant increase in the aforesaid manner shall in no case be more than the contribution (bonus and special contribution) which could have been credited in his provident fund account had he retired on completing 33 years qualifying service or on attainment of the age superannuation, whichever is less. (vi) The benefit of five years, notional qualifying service mentioned in this clause shall not be admissible to a Government servant who is retired under sub-rule (2) of this Rule. (vi) The benefit of five years, notional qualifying service mentioned in this clause shall not be admissible to a Government servant who is retired under sub-rule (2) of this Rule. (e) A Government servant who give notice of voluntary retirement under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) shall satisfy himself by means of a reference to the appointing authority, who is competent to retire him to the effect that he has, in fact, completed 20 years qualifying services for pension. (f) A Government servant may, with the approval of the Appointing Authority, withdraw the notice given under clause (a) of this sub-rule provided the request for such withdrawal is made before the expiry of the notice. (g) The authority competent to retire a Government servant may, in deserving cases, accept the notice contemplated under clause (a) of this sub-rule for a period of less than 3 months with the concurrence of the Govt. in the Finance Department. (h) Deleted." Thus, it is clear that a Govt. servant may after giving at least 3 months previous notice in writing to the Appointing Authority retire from service on the date on which he completes 20 years of qualifying service or attains the age of 45 years whichever is earlier or any date thereafter to be specified in the notice and it is open to the Appointing Authority to withhold permission to retire a Govt. servant on the grounds mentioned in proviso to sub- clause (a) of r. 244(1) of the R.S.R. It is further clear that a Govt. servant who has given notice for seeking retirement under clause (a) of r. 244(1) of the RSR may presume acceptance of the notice of retirement and the retirement shall be effective in terms of the notice automatically unless an order in writing to the contrary has been issued by the competent authority and served upon the Govt. servant before the expiry of the period of the notice. (11) In the first notice that was given by the petitioner, he mentioned that he wants to retire from service with effect from 1.5.1984. That notice is dated 22.10.1983. When no contrary order was received, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have ceased the work with effect from 1.5.1984 because as per sub-clause (b) of r. 244 (1) of the RSR, he could presume the acceptance of his notice for voluntary retirement. That notice is dated 22.10.1983. When no contrary order was received, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have ceased the work with effect from 1.5.1984 because as per sub-clause (b) of r. 244 (1) of the RSR, he could presume the acceptance of his notice for voluntary retirement. However, the petitioner continued in service. He further gave a notice in the month of May 1985 for being granted voluntary retirement with effect from 15.7.1985. As stated above, no contrary order in writing has been served on the petitioner before the expiry of the period of his notice i.e. by 15.7.1985 and, therefore, as per sub-clause (b) of r. 244 (1) of the RSR, he should have presumed acceptance of his notice for voluntary retirement. R. 244 (1) does not provide that if the notice of voluntary retirement given by a Govt. servant is accepted with effect from the date, the Govt. servant has specified in his notice, the Govt. cannot accept his notice for voluntary retirement by a later date. Rule do provide for the scrutiny as also refusal of the notice for voluntary retirement. As stated above, voluntary retirement can be refused on certain grounds which are mentioned in proviso to sub-clause (a) of r. 244 (1) of the Rules. Sub-clause (f) of r. 244 (1) of the RSR provides that a Government servant with the approval of the appointing authority, withdraw the notice given under clause (a) of this sub-rule provided the request for such withdrawal is made before the expiry of the notice and sub-clause (g) of r. 244 (1) of the RSR further provides that the authority competent to retire a Govt. servant may, in deserving cases, accept the notice contemplated under clause (a) of this sub-rule for a period of less than 3 months with the concurrence of the Govt. in the Finance Department. It is not a case where the petitioner has withdrawn his notice of voluntary retirement or he has communicated to the Govt. that he has changed his mind either before the expiry of the period of notice or before the acceptance of the notice. in the Finance Department. It is not a case where the petitioner has withdrawn his notice of voluntary retirement or he has communicated to the Govt. that he has changed his mind either before the expiry of the period of notice or before the acceptance of the notice. It is not a case where the petitioner has sought his voluntary retirement to fight the elections or for any urgent need and, therefore, even if it is presumed that 3 months notice is necessary, then too in case of voluntary retirement, the effect of the notice on the expiry of 3 months or on the date specified in the notice is automatic, unless contrary order is served on the Govt. servant. Thus, to submit that because his notice for voluntary retirement was not accepted by the Govt. with effect from the date specified in the notice itself, the Govt. could not accept that notice with effect from a later date cannot be sustained. At best, it can be treated to be an order by which the date of voluntary retirement has been changed by the authority concerned. (12) If the petitioner would not have waited for such a consent of the Government, he could have presumed such a consent on the expiry of the period of his notice and would have voluntarily retired from service but as he waited for the consent of the Government, the consent order was communicated to him vide order Annexure-3 dated 4.4.1986 and in compliance of that order, he was relieved from service vide order Annexure-5 dated 31.5.1986. Thus, there is no illegality in this order Annexure-3 dated 4.4.1986, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be voluntarily retired from service with effect from the date, he is relieved from his duty. As stated above, he has been relieved from his duty vide order Annexure-5 dated 31.5.1986. The State Govt. has all powers to accept voluntary retirement of a Govt. servant with effect from a subsequent date other than the date mentioned in the notice for voluntary retirement. The Govt. can always ask a Govt. servant to retire from a later date if he continues to work after the notice period and does not withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement in the mean while. servant with effect from a subsequent date other than the date mentioned in the notice for voluntary retirement. The Govt. can always ask a Govt. servant to retire from a later date if he continues to work after the notice period and does not withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement in the mean while. (13) Moreover, such a notice for voluntary retirement do require certain application of mind, collection of certain facts as to whether an disciplinary enquiry is pending or contemplated for the imposition of a major penalty and if in collection of those informations, sometime is spent by the competent authority and it gives a particular date for the voluntary retirement of a Government servant, that date cannot be treated to be illegal or unjust. Acceptance of voluntary retirement of a Govt. servant with effect from a subsequent date other than the date mentioned in the notice itself cannot be treated to be a fresh proposal because it has never been the intention of the Government to retire a Government servant voluntarily. The voluntary retirement was sought by the petitioner himself and the Govt. can retire a Govt. servant compulsorily under r. 244 (2) of the RSR. Unless a Govt. servant withdraws his offer for voluntary retirement, he is bound by the date given by the Government for his retirement, if the petitioner does not cease to work on the date mentioned in his notice or on expiry of three months from the date of the notice. Normally, he is bound to cease to work on the expiry of the three months from the date of the notice or from the date mentioned in the notice because the consent of the Govt. can be presumed and the voluntary retirement is automatic in such circumstances as per clause (b) of r. 244 (1) of the RSR unless a contrary order is passed by the Govt. before that date. It would have been a different matter, if he would have changed his mind and would have withdrawn his offer of voluntary retirement before acceptance. Thus, the acceptance of notice of voluntary retirement of the petitioner from a later date by the Govt. hardly matters till the offer to voluntarily retire subsists and has not been withdrawn. (14) Moreover, the order Annexure-3 does not lay down a condition that the petitioner will not be retired unless he produced No Dues Certificate. Thus, the acceptance of notice of voluntary retirement of the petitioner from a later date by the Govt. hardly matters till the offer to voluntarily retire subsists and has not been withdrawn. (14) Moreover, the order Annexure-3 does not lay down a condition that the petitioner will not be retired unless he produced No Dues Certificate. If only says that he may retired if No Dues are outstanding against him. Thus, what was required was that before retiring him, it should be ensured that no outstanding is there against him. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that he may be treated to be retired from service voluntarily on the date when No Dues Certificate was issued in his favour vide Annexure-17 cannot be sustained. (15) It was next submitted by Mr. Purohit that in his representation Annexure-16 dated 5.12.1990 and in his written submission, which were submitted before the Chief Engineer, certain points were raised but they have not been dealt within the impugned order Annexure-22. I have carefully gone through the representation Annexure-16 as also the written submissions that were filed by the petitioner before the Chief Engineer and I found that the petitioner had raised a plea that the State Govt. has no right to select a particular date for his voluntary retirement when that date does not coincide with the date offered by the petitioner in his notice for voluntary retirement because the Govt. has no power to retire a Govt. servant after the date mentioned by him in his notice expires. The rest are only submissions of facts. Of course, a plea has been taken that he has filed an application for taking him on duty and that application has been inwarded in the Inward Register. If an application is given to an Inward Clerk and if that is inwarded in the Receipt Register, it does not give a right to the petitioner to rejoin the duty. Once he has been discharged from service by accepting his voluntary retirement after a conscious decision, a formal order is required by a competent authority to take him back on duty. Thus, the surreptitious manner in which the petitioner has filed this application of rejoining and getting it inwarded without any order to that effect in the Inward Register does not amount to rejoining duty by him. (16) It was contended by Mr. Thus, the surreptitious manner in which the petitioner has filed this application of rejoining and getting it inwarded without any order to that effect in the Inward Register does not amount to rejoining duty by him. (16) It was contended by Mr. Vinod Purohit that the impugned order An-nexure-22 is a non-speaking order. It has been mechanically passed without application of mind. In this respect, he has drawn my attention to a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. M.L. Kapoor (1), wherein it has been held that it is incumbent on the Selection Committee to state reasons in a manner which would disclose how the record of each superseded officer stood in relation to records of others who were to be preferred. It is true that an order which visits somebody with evil and civil consequences must be a speaking order and, therefore, the learned Chief Engineer should have recorded his reasons as to why he does not find any force in the submissions of the petitioners that he could not have been retired from a date later than suggested by him but the learned Chief Engineer after considering the representation as also the written submissions submitted by the petitioner came to the conclusion that the orders that have been passed are just and proper and, therefore, they need no interference. (17) My attention was next drawn to a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramchander vs. U.O.I. (2), wherein it has been held that the dismissal or removal from service is a matter of grave concern to a civil servant and, therefore, it has to be ensured that there is no non-compliance of the Rules. It is not a case of dismissal or removal from service as a measure of punishment and hence, this authority has no application to the facts of the present case, where the petitioner has sought voluntary retirement. (18) Mr. Purohit next drew my attention to a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co. v. The Union of India (3), wherein it has been held that it is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes and every quashi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. & Mfg. Co. v. The Union of India (3), wherein it has been held that it is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes and every quashi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. (19) Thus, the entire thrust of this argument is that the order of the learned Chief Engineer is a non-speaking order and the grounds mentioned by the petitioner in his representation as also his written submissions have not been considered. I have already stated above that most of the contents of the written submissions as also of the representation are mere submissions of facts but one point has definitely been raised in the representation as also in the written submissions that the State Govt. has no authority to accept the notice of voluntary retirement of the petitioner from a later date. I have already held that this contention of Mr. Purohit cannot be sustained. The Govt. has every authority to accept an offer of voluntary retirement even after the date that is mentioned in the application/notice for voluntary retirement. It is one thing that an employee who tenders his notice for voluntary retirement can treat himself as voluntarily retired on the expiry of three months from the date of notice or from the date specified in the notice, if no contrary order is received but that does not mean that the Govt. has no authority to determine any other date than the one mentioned in his notice for voluntary retirement. (20) For complying with the formalities mentioned in the proviso to clause (a) of r. 244 (1) of the RSR, certain informations have to be gathered and if collection of those informations takes sometime and consequently, if any further date is given for the retirement of a Government servant, a Government servant cannot raise any grouse about it because any work has been taken from him during that intervening period, he has been paid for it and, therefore, simply because, the learned Chief Engineer chose to retire the petitioner from a later date, the impugned order Annexure-3 dated 4.4.1986 cannot be said to be unjust or perverse. The petitioner has already been relieved from service with effect from 31.5.1986 vide order Annexure-5. The petitioner has already been relieved from service with effect from 31.5.1986 vide order Annexure-5. In this view of the matter, the orders Annexure-3 and Annexure-5 cannot be said to be either unjust or improper. (21) It was submitted by Mr. Purohit that Pension Department of the Govt. of Rajasthan has also objected to the retirement of the petitioner with effect from 31.5.1986. That is a matter of internal correspondence between two Departments whereby the Pension Department has claimed that when the petitioner gave notice for his voluntary retirement with effect from 28.10.1985 then why he has been retired from service with effect from 31.5.1986. As stated above, unless the notice for voluntary retirement is withdrawn or a contrary order is passed, the voluntary retirement is automatic either from the date specified in the notice for voluntary retirement or after the expiry of the period of three months notice by a Govt. servant. If somebody has caused any delay in acceptance of an offer for voluntary retirement and if for that, any departmental proceedings are called for against any Officer/Official, the respondents are free to take action in that regard but that does not mean that this correspondence between two Departments confers any right on the petitioner to remain in service till he attains the age of superannuation. (22) It is a different matter that on account of delay in pension, if he has suffered any Joss, he can agitate for grant of interest etc. before a competent court of law but the orders Annexures-3 and 5 are absolutely valid and, therefore, they cannot be set aside. (23) Mr. Vinod Purohit was pointedly asked whether on account of the order of the learned Chief Engineer, which is a non-speaking order, whether he wants that the case be remanded back to the learned Chief Engineer, to which, he replied that he does not want that course to be adopted because that will unnecessarily lengthen the proceedings and he will be disentitled to any retiral benefits for a longer period. (24) In the result, this writ petition has no force and therefore, it is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. However, the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner all retiral benefits within a period of six months from today.