R. H. ZAIDI, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sameer Sharma, Advocate who has appeared on behalf of respondents. 2. By means of the present petition, petitioner prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 17-6-1987, whereby the repre sentation filed by the petitioner has been rejected and the order, dated 16-5-1984 whereby the request of voluntary retirement of the petitioner was accepted by respon dent No. 1. A prayer for writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to treat the notice dated 1-3-1984 as null and void, has also been made. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was holding the post of Junior Station Incharge, for the reasons best known to him, served a notice dated 1-3-1984 that he will retire from service with effect from 1-6-1984. The request made by the petitioner to retire voluntarily was ac cepted by the competent authority. There after the petitioner made an application dated 25-3-1989, whereby he wanted to withdraw the request of voluntary retire ment, which was not accepted by the respon dents, therefore, the petitioner had to ap proach this Court and file the writ petition No. 8697 of 1987. The said petition was finally disposed of vide judgment and order dated 14-4-1987. In compliance of the order passed by. this Court, the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected on 17-6-1987. Petitioner, thereafter, filed the present petition with the prayers indicated above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner was legally entitled to withdraw the request. of voluntary retirement at any time. The view taken to the contrary by the respon dents is illegal and the orders impugned in the present petition are liable to be quashed. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions of Apex Court of the country:- (i) Raj Kumar v. Union of India AIR 1969 SC 180 . (ii) Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra, AIR 1978 SC 694 (iii) Balram Gupta v. Union of India and another, AIR 1987 SC 2354 . 5. Learned counsel appearing on be half of the respondents contended that the petitioner has served the notice dated 1-3-1984 to retire from service voluntarily with effect from 1-6-1984, i. e. on expiry of three months. 5. Learned counsel appearing on be half of the respondents contended that the petitioner has served the notice dated 1-3-1984 to retire from service voluntarily with effect from 1-6-1984, i. e. on expiry of three months. The request made by him was ac cepted by the competent authority and the petitioner actually retired from service on 1-6-1984. After retirement from service, there was no justification for the petitioner to make an application to withdraw the let ter of resignation. He further submits that before 1-6-1984 the petitioner could withdraw the letter of resignation, but not thereafter. The application for withdrawal made by the petitioner on 25-3-1985, was rightly rejected by the authorities below as the resignation became effective and the petitioner has already retired from service with effect from 1-6-1984. 6. For the purposes of the present case, Regulation 38 of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation Service Regulations 1981, is relevant, which is quoted below:- "38. Compulsory and voluntary retire ment.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 37, the appointing authority may at any time, by notice to an employee (whether per manent or temporary), not being a workman, require him to retire after he attains the age of fifty years without assigning any reason. Such employee may likewise by notice to the appointing authority voluntarily retire at any time after at -. taining the age of 45 years or after he has com pleted the qualifying service of twenty years. Such employee may likewise by notice to the appointing authority voluntarily retire at any time after at -. taining the age of 45 years or after he has com pleted the qualifying service of twenty years. (2) The period of such notice shall be three months: Provided that- (i) any such employee may, by order of the appointing authority without such notice, or by a shorter notice, be retired forthwith at any time after attaining the age of fifty years and on such retirement the employee shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances, if any, for the period of the notice, or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of three months, at the same rates which he was drawing immediately before his retirement; (ii) it shall be open to the appointing authority to allow an employee to retire without any notice or by a shorter notice without requiring the employee to pay penalty in lieu of notice: Provided further that such notice given by an employee against whom disciplinary proceed ing is pending or contemplated, shall be effective only if it is accepted by the appointing authority, provided that in the case of a contemplated dis ciplinary proceeding the member of service shall be informed before the expiry of his notice that it has not been accepted: Provided also that the notice once given by an employee under sub-regulation (1) seeking voluntary retirement shall not be withdrawn by him except with the permission of appointing authority. " 7. It is well settled in law that letter of resignation becomes effective, in the cases where acceptance is not required from the date it is tendered, in the cases where accep tance is required from the date of its accep tance and in the cases where resignation is tendered with effect from any future date, from the date it is purported to be effected. In the present case the petitioner has sub mitted his resignation which was to take effect on expiry of statutory period of three months. Admittedly, three months expired on 1-6-1984. The competent authority has accepted the resignation as desired by the petitioner himself with effect from 1-6-1984. In the present case the petitioner has sub mitted his resignation which was to take effect on expiry of statutory period of three months. Admittedly, three months expired on 1-6-1984. The competent authority has accepted the resignation as desired by the petitioner himself with effect from 1-6-1984. Petitioner could withdraw the resig nation before 1 -6-1984, even ifthesame was accepted by the competent authority, but in this case no such request was made within the time by the petitioner to withdraw the resignation. Application for withdrawal of the resignation was filed long thereafter, i. e. on 25-3-1989. On the said date there remained nothing to be withdrawn as in the terms of the letter of resignation the petitioner was already retired from service with effect from 1 -6-1984. 8. In Raj Kumars case (supra) the question before the Apex Court was as to whether a Government servant could withdraw the letter of resignation before acceptance thereof was communicated to him. After considering the arguments and relevant law on the point, it was ruled by the Supreme Court as under:- "till the resignation is accepted by the ap propriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance, the public servant con cerned has locus paenitentiac but not there after. " 9. In Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra and others (supra) the question was as to whether a judge of High Court could withdraw a prospective resignation at any time before the same becomes effective. Honble Supreme Court in the said case was pleased to rule as under:- "it will bear repetition that the general prin ciple is that in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a prospective resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effec tive and it becomes effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office-tenure of the resignor. This general rule is equally ap plicable to Government servant/or function ary/who cannot, under the conditions of his ser vice/or office, by his own unilateral act of tender ing resignation, give up his service/or office, nor mally, the tender of resignation becomes effective and his service/or office- tenure terminated, when it is accepted by the competent authority. This general rule is equally ap plicable to Government servant/or function ary/who cannot, under the conditions of his ser vice/or office, by his own unilateral act of tender ing resignation, give up his service/or office, nor mally, the tender of resignation becomes effective and his service/or office- tenure terminated, when it is accepted by the competent authority. In the case of a Judge of a High Court, who is a constitu tional functionary and under proviso (a) to Article 217 (1) has a unilateral right or privilege effect and tenure terminated on the date from which he, of his own volition, chooses to quit office. If in terms of the writing under his hand addressed to the President, he resigns inpraesenti, the resignation tei minates his office-tenure forthwith and cannot therefore, be withdrawn or revoked thereafter. But, if he by such writing, chooses to resign from a future date, the act of resigning office is not com plete because it does not lerminate his tenure before such date and the Judge can at any time before the arrival of that prospective date on which it was intended to be effective, withdraw it, because the Constitution does not bar such withdrawal. " 10. In Balram Guptas case (supra) Rule 48-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 came to be con sidered by the Apex Court of the country which is analogous to Regulation 38 of the Regulations, referred to above. In the said case the resignation was accepted by the authority concerned before the date men tioned by the Government employee in his letter of resignation. It was ruled that employee concerned was entitled to withdraw the resignation even if the same was accepted before the resignation became effective i. e. before the date of resignation indicated in the letter of resignation. 11. All the aforesaid decisions came under consideration in the case of Punjab National Bank v. P. K. Mittal, AIR 1989 SC 1083 . In this case Regulation 20 of the Regulations (Punjab National Bank) was under consideration. Regulation 20 of the said Regulations is also analogous to Regulation 38, referred to above, which is extracted below:- "20 (1) Subject to sub-regulation (3) of regulation 16, the bank may terminate the services of any officer by giving him three months notice in writing or by paying him three monthss emolu ments in lieu thereof. Regulation 20 of the said Regulations is also analogous to Regulation 38, referred to above, which is extracted below:- "20 (1) Subject to sub-regulation (3) of regulation 16, the bank may terminate the services of any officer by giving him three months notice in writing or by paying him three monthss emolu ments in lieu thereof. (2) No officer shall resign from the service of the bank otherwise than on the expiry of three months from the service on the bank of a notice in writing of such resignation. Provided further that the competent authority may reduce the period of three months, or remit the requirement of notice. " After taking into consideration the relevant decisions on the point and par ticularly the decisions in the cases of Raj Kumar, Gopal Chandra Misra and Balram Gupta (supra) it was ruled as under:- "we are of the opinion that Cl. (2) of the regulation and its proviso are intended not only for the protection of the bank but also for the benefit of the employee. It is common knowledge that a person proposing to resign often wavers in his decision and even in a case where he has taken a firm decision to resign, he may not be ready to go out immediately. In most cases he would need a period of adjustment and hence like to defer the actual date of relief from duties for a few months for various personal reasons. Equally an employer may like to defer the actual date of relief from duties for a few months for various personal reasons. Equally an employer may like to have time to make some alternative arrangement before relieving the resigning employee. Clause (2) is carefully mind. It gives the employee a period of adjustment and rethinking. It also enables the bank to have some time to arrange its affairs, with the liberty, in appropriate case, to accept the resignation of an employee even without the requisite notice if he so desires it. The proviso in our opinion should not be interpreted as enabling a bank to thrust a resignation on an employee with effect from a date different from the one on which he can make his resignation effective under terms of the resignation. The proviso in our opinion should not be interpreted as enabling a bank to thrust a resignation on an employee with effect from a date different from the one on which he can make his resignation effective under terms of the resignation. We therefore, agree with the High Court that in the present case the resignation of the employee could have become effective only on or about 21st April, 1986 or on 30th June, 1986 and that the bank could not have "accepted" that resignation on any earlier date. The letter dated 7th February, 1986 was, therefore, without jurisdiction. The result of the above interpretation is that the employee continued to be in service till the 21st April, 1986 or 30th June, 1986, on which date his services would have come normally to an end it terms of his letter dated 21st January, 1986. But, by that time, he had exercised his right to withdraw the resignation. Since the withdrawal letter was written before the resignation became effective, the resignation stands withdrawn, with the result that the respondent continues 10 be in the service of the bank. It is true that there is no specific provision in the regulations permitting the employee to withdraw the resignation. It is, how ever, not necessary that there should be any such specific rule. Until the resignation becomes effec tive on the terms of the letter read with Regulation 20, it is open to the employee, on general prin ciples, to withdraw his letter of resignation. That is why, in some cases of public services, this right of withdrawal is also made subject to the permission of the employer. " 12. In view of the law laid down by Supreme Court, the prospective resignation may be withdrawn by the Government employee before the date the same becomes effective. 13. As stated above, in the present case, the resignation of the petitioner be come effective from 1-6- 1984, the date which was indicated by the petitioner him self in his letter of resignation, which was also accepted and agreed upon by the com petent authority. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .