JUGDMENT - R.M. LODHA, J. :---By means of this writ petition, the petitioner S. Ramchandra Rao, prays for writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order and judgment dated 15-4-1993 passed by the School Tribunal, Bombay Region, Bombay. 2.National Kannad Education Society is a society which runs a Government aided school in both English as well as Kannad medium. The respondent No. 1 in the writ petition is Secretary of the said society. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the school run by respondent No. 1 in the year 1959 and after serving for about 28 years the petitioner was promoted to the post of Headmaster. On 23rd March 1992, the petitioner, it appears, due to his ailing health applied for voluntary retirement. The said application was requested to be treated as three months notice. The application for voluntary retirement made by the petitioner to the society was considered by Working Committee in its meeting held on 10th April 1992 and by the communication dated 23-4-1992 the petitioner was communicated that Committee had accepted his request for voluntary retirement and he would be relieved of his duties in the evening of 22nd June 1992. The petitioner had second thought about his voluntary retirement and on 18th May 1992 before the intended date of voluntary retirement wrote to the society for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement. Vide letter dated 10-6-1992, the Society wrote to the petitioner that he cannot withdraw his application for voluntary retirement. The case of the petitioner is that after withdrawing the application for voluntary retirement by communication dated 18th May 1992 which he could legally do and the letter of Society dated 10-6-92 being illegal on 13-6-92 when he went to school for resumption of duties, the management of the society prevented and obstructed the petitioner from resuming his duties and petitioner was not permitted to enter the school building. The petitioner thereafter issued a legal notice and then filed an appeal under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 (for short, 'Act of 1977'). The said appeal was contested by the society and the tribunal by the impugned order dated 15th April 1993 dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The said order passed by the tribunal on 15th April 1993, as observed above, has given rise to the present writ petition. 3.Mr. The said appeal was contested by the society and the tribunal by the impugned order dated 15th April 1993 dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The said order passed by the tribunal on 15th April 1993, as observed above, has given rise to the present writ petition. 3.Mr. A. Ramkrishnan, the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner urged that it was open to the petitioner to withdraw the application of voluntary retirement before the intended date of his retirement and the management has to give such permission of withdrawal. According to him acceptance of application of voluntary retirement by the society in its meeting dated 10th April 1992 and its communication to the petitioner on 23rd April 1992 has no legal meaning. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon Clause 7 of the Government Resolution dated 9th September 1988. According to Mr. Ramkrishnan, the application for voluntary retirement having been validly withdrawn, refusal by the management society in permitting the petitioner the resumption of duties as Headmaster amounted to 'termination otherwise' and, therefore, appeal was maintainable under section 9 of the Act of 1977 and tribunal was wholly unjustified in holding that appeal filed by petitioner was not maintainable under section 9 of the Act of 1977. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court - (Punjab National Bank, appellant v. P.K. Mittal. respondent)1, 1989 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 175, and (Balram Gupta appellant v. Union of India and another, respondents)2, 1987 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 228. 4.The contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are vehemently opposed by Mr. A.G. Kothari the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. Mr. A.G. Kothari, supported the reasons given by the school tribunal and further submitted that the provisions contained in Rule 66 of the Maharashtra Civil Services Pension Rules of 1982 regarding voluntary retirement have been made applicable mutatis mutandis to the Government Resolution dated 9th September 1988 and in terms of Rule 66 of Rules of 1982, the petitioner was precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of the appointing authority. According to Mr. Kothari no such approval was accorded by the appointing authority and, therefore, there was no withdrawal of the application for voluntary retirement in the eye of law and petitioner stood voluntarily retired w.e.f. 22nd June 1992. Mr. According to Mr. Kothari no such approval was accorded by the appointing authority and, therefore, there was no withdrawal of the application for voluntary retirement in the eye of law and petitioner stood voluntarily retired w.e.f. 22nd June 1992. Mr. Kothari urged that as a matter of fact the application made by the petitioner was not of voluntary retirement but was an application for voluntary resignation and the said application was accepted by the Working Committee on 10th April 1992. The communication of acceptance was sent to the petitioner on 23rd April 1992 and thus according to Mr. Kothari the voluntary resignation stood acted upon and there could not have been any withdrawal of such voluntary resignation. Mr. Kothari would also urge that the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Act of 1977 was not maintainable since it is not covered under section 9 He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5.If the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the application of voluntary retirement made by the petitioner was validly withdrawn by writing to the respondent No. 1 on 18th May 1992 is upheld, obviously the petitioner would be deemed to be in service and the action of the respondent No. 1 in sending the letter on 10-06-1992 and not permitting the petitioner to resume duties on 13th June 1992 on reopening of the school would be nothing but action of terminating the petitioner's service otherwise and such action would definitely be amenable to appeal under section 9 of the Act of 1977. Therefore, the moot question is whether after acceptance of the application of voluntary retirement made by the petitioner, was it open to the petitioner to withdraw the application for voluntary retirement before the intended date of voluntary retirement? The two different facets of this question would be whether before intended date of voluntary retirement, the respondent No. 1 could accept application for voluntary retirement made by the petitioner and whether the respondent No. 1 was bound to acceed to the request made by the petitioner for withdrawal of application of voluntary retirement made by the petitioner before the intended date of his retirement. 6.Few relevant dates first. On 23rd March 1992 the petitioner made an application for voluntary retirement. The said application was in the form of requisite three months notice. 6.Few relevant dates first. On 23rd March 1992 the petitioner made an application for voluntary retirement. The said application was in the form of requisite three months notice. The application made by the petitioner on 23rd March 92 was considered by the Working Committee of school management of 10th April 1992, and, the application made by the petitioner for voluntary retirement was accepted. By the communication dated 23rd April 1992 the petitioner was communicated about the acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement and he was informed that he would be relieved of his duties in the evening of 22nd June 1992. On 18th May 1992 the petitioner writes to the society withdrawing his request for voluntary retirement and intimating the respondent No. 1 society that he would join his duties on 13th June 1992. The Society replies to the petitioner that he cannot withdraw application of voluntary retirement. The school reopens on 13-06-92 and petitioner is not permitted to resume his duties. 7.The Education and Employment Department of the Government of Maharashtra framed a scheme of voluntary retirement for the teaching and non teaching employees of the recognised, and, aided non Government secondary schools, higher secondary classes and junior colleges of education. The scheme made eligibility critarion of completion of 20 years of qualifying service. The said scheme was notified and published by way of Resolution No. PEN-1078/1005 (2605) SE-6 dated 9th September 1988 and non teaching employees as it was directed in the said Government Resolution (for short, 'GR') that provisions contained in Rule 66 of Maharashtra Civil Services Pension Rules, 1982 regarding voluntary retirement shall be mutatis mutandis made applicable to the said employees. The learned Counsel for the petitioner on the one hand strongly relies on Clause 7 of the said GR while on the other hand the emphasis of the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 is on sub rule (5) of Rule 66 of Maharashtra Civil Services Pension Rules, 1982. 8.Clause 7 of the GR dated 9th September, 1988 reads thus : "7. If an employee, who has given the necessary notice for voluntary retirement to the Management, wishes to withdraw the said notice, the permission to do so shall be given if the request for withdrawal is made before the intended date of his retirement." 9.Rule 66(5) of Maharashtra Civil Services Pension Rules, 1982 (for short, 'Rules of 1982') reads thus: Section 66. Retirement on completion of 20 years qualifying service (1) --------------------------------------------- (2) --------------------------------------------- (3) --------------------------------------------- (4) --------------------------------------------- (5) A Government servant, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority: Provided that the request for withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement. (6) ------------------------------------------ (7) ------------------------------------------ 10.Clause 7 of the Government resolution as well as Rule 66(5) of Rules of 1982 have to read harmoniously. A harmonious reading of Rule 7 of GR dated 9th September 1988 and Rule 66(5) of rules of 1982 would show that there is no inconsistency between the said provisions. Clause 7 of the GR dated 9th September 1988 provides that in case where the employee has given the notice of voluntary retirement and he wishes to withdraw the said notice before the intended date of his retirement, the permission to withdraw the said notice of voluntary retirement shall be given. Sub rule (5) of Rule 66 aforequoted makes a provision that an employee having given option of voluntary retirement and necessary notice regarding thereto shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice of voluntary retirement except with the specific approval of the appointing authority. That means the concerned employee who has opted for voluntary retirement and has given necessary notice to that effect may withdraw the same before the intended date of his retirement upon specific approval of the appointing authority. The language of Clause 7 of the GR dated 9th September 1988 makes it incumbent upon such authority to give permission for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement made by the employee if such application for withdrawal has been made before the intended date of his retirement. That means the only ground on which such authority could refuse the prayer for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement if prayer of withdrawal is made not before the intended date of his retirement. In substance, therefore, if the employee has made an application for voluntary retirement and subsequently he prays for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement before the intended date of his retirement, the concerned authority is duty bound to permit such employee to withdraw the notice for voluntary retirement. In substance, therefore, if the employee has made an application for voluntary retirement and subsequently he prays for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement before the intended date of his retirement, the concerned authority is duty bound to permit such employee to withdraw the notice for voluntary retirement. It is not open to the concerned authority to refuse withdrawal of notice for voluntary retirement once such request is made before the intended date of his retirement. Approval from the concerned authority has to follow as a matter of course if prayer for withdrawal of notice for voluntary retirement is made before intended date of retirement. In any case there has to be valid and justifiable reason for the concerned authority in not acceeding to the request of the withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement made by the employee. The communication dated 10-6-92 rejecting the petitioner's application for withdrawal does not spell out any valid reason. 11.I am fortified in my view by the judgment of the Apex Court in Balram Gupta's case cited supra wherein the Apex Court thus held: 10. This question arose in the case of one Shri Satish Chandra, then a Judge in the High Court of Allahabad in Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra. 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 August 1, 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 August 1, 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 usurpation of public office. 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 office which implied cessation or termination of, or cutting as under from the office. 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 office 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 office 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 office tenure of a Judge up to the age of 62 years. It was further reiterated that in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, an 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. 11. In Air India v. Nergesh Meerza, the Court struck down certain provisions of Air India Employees' Service Regulations. We are not concerned with the actual controversy. But the Court reiterated that there should not be arbitrariness and hostile discrimination in Government's approach to its employees. On behalf of the respondent it was submitted that a Government servant was not entitled to demand as of right, permission to withdraw the letter of voluntary retirement, it could only be given as a matter of grace. Our attention was also drawn to the observations of this Court in Raj Kumar v. Union of India. There the Court reiterated that till the resignation was accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance, the public servant concerned has locus poenitentiae but not thereafter. Our attention was also drawn to the observations of this Court in Raj Kumar v. Union of India. There the Court reiterated that till the resignation was accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance, the public servant concerned has locus poenitentiae but not thereafter. Undue delay in intimating to the public servant concerned the action taken on the letter of resignation may justify an inference that resignation had not been accepted. But in the facts of the instant case the resignation from the Government servant was to take effect at a subsequent date prospectively and the withdrawal was long before that date. Therefore, the appellant, in our opinion, had locus. As mentioned hereinbefore the main question was whether the sub-Rule (4) of Rule 48-A was valid and if so whether the power exercised under the sub-Rule (4) of Rule 48-A was proper. In the view we have taken it is not necessary, in our opinion, to decide whether sub-Rue (4) of Rule 48-A was valid or not. It may be a salutary requirement that a Government servant cannot withdraw a letter of resignation or of voluntary retirement at his sweet Will and put the Government into difficulties by writing letters of resignation or retirement and withdrawing the same immediately without rhyme or reason. Therefore, for the purpose of appeal we do not propose to consider the question whether sub-rule (4) of Rule 48-A of the Pension Rules is valid or not. If properly exercised the power of the Government may be a salutary rule. Approval, however, is not ipse dixit of the approving authority. The approving authority who has the statutory authority must act reasonably and rationally. The only reason put forward here is that the appellant had not indicated his reasons for withdrawal. This, in our opinion, was sufficiently indicated that he was prevailed upon by his friends and the appellant had a second look at the matter. This is not an unreasonable reason. The guidelines indicated are as follows: "(2) A question has been raised whether a Government servant who has given to the appropriate authority notice of retirement under the para 2(2) above has any right subsequently (but during the currency of the notice) to withdraw the same and return to duty. The question has been considered carefully and the conclusion reached is that the Government servant has no such right. The question has been considered carefully and the conclusion reached is that the Government servant has no such right. There would, however, be no objection to permission being given to such a Government servant, on consideration of the circumstances of his case to withdraw the notice given by him, but ordinarily such permission should not be granted unless he is in a position to show that there has been a material change in the circumstances in consideration of which the notice was originally given. Where the notice of retirement has been served by Government on the Government servant, it may be withdrawn if so desired to adequate reasons, provided the Government servant concerned is agreeable." 12.In Punjab National Bank v. P.K. Mittal (supra) the Supreme Court again reiterated that employee can withdraw his resignation before it becomes effective while considering the provisions contained in Punjab National Bank Officer's Service Regulation, 1979. 13.In my view, therefore, the petitioner ought to have been permitted withdrawal of the notice of voluntary retirement which he did make before the intended date of retirement i.e. 22nd June 1992, and, there was no valid or justifiable reason for the respondent No. 1 in not granting permission for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement and there was absolutely no justification for the management in not permitting the petitioner to resume his duties on 13th June 1992 when the school re-opened. 14.I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 that the application made by the petitioner was not an application for voluntary retirement but an application for voluntary resignation. It is very difficult to appreciate the basis of this contention of the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 on the face of the GR, the application for voluntary retirement made by the petitioner on 23-3-1992, its consideration by the school management and its communications. The application made by the petitioner on 23rd May 92 was an application for voluntary retirement on health grounds which was also considered by the respondents as an application for voluntary retirement in the meeting of Working Committee on 10th April 1992. The application made by the petitioner on 23rd May 92 was an application for voluntary retirement on health grounds which was also considered by the respondents as an application for voluntary retirement in the meeting of Working Committee on 10th April 1992. The application made by the petitioner, therefore, was an application for voluntary retirement which he sought to withdraw by making an application on 18th May 1992 and in fact by the said communication dated 18th May 1992 the petitioner did withdraw the application for voluntary retirement. 15.In view of my finding aforesaid that the application for voluntary retirement made by the petitioner on 23rd May 1992 was validly withdrawn on 18th May 1992 and that there was no justification for the respondent No. 1 to refuse the permission for withdrawal of application of voluntary retirement made by the petitioner, obviously the petitioner continued in service and action of respondent No. 1 in not permitting the petitioner to resume his duties on 13th June 1992 was nothing but petitioner's termination which was covered by the expression 'termination otherwise' under section 9 of the Act of 1977. Thus the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Act of 1977 was maintainable. 16.Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. The order passed by the school tribunal on 15th April 1993 is quashed and set aside. As a result of this the appeal filed by the petitioner before the school tribunal stands allowed. Since the petitioner has already attained age of superannuation, the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement now, and, is only entitled to all monetary and consequential benefits in lieu thereof as if he continued in service as Headmaster till the date of his superannuation. 17.Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs. Certified copy expedited. Petition allowed.