(1) THE respondent joined the Indian Air Force in 1961 and was promoted as Squadron Leader in 1973. On 21/1/1976 he wrote a letter to his Commanding Officer seeking premature retirement for reasons stated therein. The reason for seeking premature retirement was that his grievances were not being redressed even though he had moved in accordance with the procedure laid down in that behalf. To this, the department sent a response on 20/5/1978 inter alia stating that government could consider his case for premature retirement only if he agrees to waive all non-effective benefits. Thereafter, the respondent wrote another letter on 9/6/1978 once again seeking premature retirement. In this letter also he set out his grievances, three in number, namely (1 denial of married accommodation; (2 arrears of qualification pay; and (3 arrears of pay and then proceeded to state that he was compelled to seek premature retirement as his aforesaid grievances were not redressed. He further stated that he did not want to cause any embarrassment to the Air Force, but he could not understand why Air Headquarters is eager to deprive him of the non-effective benefits. He proceeds to add that if Air Headquarters in their discretion want to deny him non-effective benefits he would have no option but to accept the same since he was no more interested to continue in the organisation. Treating this as a letter of resignation it was decided to release him without non-effective benefits. Thereupon he filed a petition in the High court of Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution. His petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. He filed an appeal under the letters patent. His appeal was allowed, the division bench holding that he was virtually compelled to give up non-effective benefits. Since there was no voluntary waiver, the division bench came to the conclusion that the said letter could not be treated as a letter of resignation. It is against the said order of the division bench that the present appeal is filed. (2) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the judgments of the learned Single Judge as well as the division bench. Under the rules, release from service can be by resignation, voluntary retirement, removal or dismissal. Para 215 of the regulations governing the Air Force provides for voluntary retirement. (2) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the judgments of the learned Single Judge as well as the division bench. Under the rules, release from service can be by resignation, voluntary retirement, removal or dismissal. Para 215 of the regulations governing the Air Force provides for voluntary retirement. It says: "VOLUNTARY retirement will only be permitted subject to the interests of the service. An officer who had been refused permission to retire voluntarily may, at the discretion of the government, bepermitted to resign his commission."