S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Junior assistant in the Sports Authority of Andhra pradesh on 08-08-1974. The petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant on 01-09-1976 and he was further promoted as superintendent with effect from 11-03-1983 and at the relevant point of time he was serving in the office of the first respondent. The petitioner tendered his resignation to the post on 31-12-1998 (sic. 1997 ). His resignation letter reads as under:"to the Vice-Chairman and managing Director, sports Authority of A. P. L. B. Stadium, hyderabad. Sir, i am not keeping good health as such I have decided to tender resignation to the post of superintendent in SAAP under V. R. S. w. e. f. 1-1-1998. Please accept the same and arrange to settle all the dues to me. Thanking you, Sir, yours faithfully, sd/. (V. S. Prakasha Rao) superintendent"the Vice-Chairman and the Managing director of the Sports Authority of Andhra pradesh on the same day issued proceedings dated 31-12-1997, accepting the resignation of the petitioner to the post of Superintendent under Voluntary retirement Scheme with effect from 01-01-1998 a. n. Thereafterwards, the petitioner on 01-01-1998 submitted a letter to the Vice-Chairman and the Managing director of the Sports Authority of Andhra pradesh withdrawing his resignation to the post submitted on 31-12-1997. The letter of the petitioner dated 01-01-1998 reads as under:"to the Vice-Chairman and managing Director, sports Authority of A. P. L. B. Stadium, hyderabad. Sir, sub: S. A. A. P.- Estt. Sri V. S. Prakash rao, Suptd. , Submission of resignation withdrawal - request for sanction of 6 months leave - Reg. Ref: My application dt. 31-12-1997. Kind attention is invited to the reference cited wherein I have tendered my resignation for the post of Superintendent on the a. n. of 31-12-97 on health grounds. As I have became mentally unbalanced at that time due to illhealth, I have taken that drastic step. I cooly think over the same and decided to withdraw my resignation on voluntary basis. Hence I am withdrawing my resignation. Kindly consider the same. I also therefore request you Sir to kindly sanction me 6 months leave on medical grounds from 1-1-98 to 30-6-98 to get through medical examination and recover completely. Thanking you, sir. Yours faithfully, sd/- (V. S. Prakash Rao) superintendent dt. Hence I am withdrawing my resignation. Kindly consider the same. I also therefore request you Sir to kindly sanction me 6 months leave on medical grounds from 1-1-98 to 30-6-98 to get through medical examination and recover completely. Thanking you, sir. Yours faithfully, sd/- (V. S. Prakash Rao) superintendent dt. 1-1-1998"since the Vice-Chairman and the Managing director of the Sports Authority of Andhra pradesh refused to recall the proceedings no. SAAP/esst-3/4721/1997-98 dated 31-12-1997, and accepted the resignation of the petitioner to the post of Superintendent not permitting the petitioner to function as superintendent after 01-01-1998, this writ petition is filed praying for a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to retain and continue the petitioner in the office of the first respondent by holding the impugned termination order in proc. No. SAAP/estt. 3/4721/97-98 dated 31-12-1997 of the first respondent as illegal,arbitrary and unjust and violative of articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution and sub-rule (2) of Rule 26 of the A. P. Sports Authority Rules and for consequential benefits such as salary, seniority as if the impugned orders were never passed. ( 2 ) IN response to Rule Nisi, the respondents have filed counter-affidavit justifying the acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner tendered on 31-12-1997 and not continuing the services of the petitioner after 01-01-1998. ( 3 ) ALTHOUGH the petitioner has set out the circumstances which led to his tendering resignation to the post of Superintendent in great elaboration in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, I do not think it necessary for the Court to refer to those parts of the pleadings for the purpaose of deciding the writ petition. Suffice it to state that the factual assertions made by the petitioner in the affidavit highlighting the background that led to his retirement have been squarely denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit, and there is no independent materials placed before the court to express any opinion on the above factual assertions made by the petitioner in his favour. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, 1 found that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the writ petition solely on point of law. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, 1 found that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the writ petition solely on point of law. There is no controversy and there cannot be any controversy that the petitioner s resignation was accepted by the Vice-Chairman and the managing Director of the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh by proceedings dated 31-12-1997 with effect from 01-01-1998 a. n. The petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in paragraph-7 has stated thus:". . . . . . . . . I submit that immediately realising the consequences of the said letter, I have approached the first respondent in person and handed over him a letter on the forenoon of 1-1-98 withdrawing my letter of resignation and requested not to accept my resignation. . . . . . "the averments made in paragraph-7 of the affidavit are traversed by the respondents in paragraph-8 of the counter-affidavit. The statement made by the petitioner on oath that he submitted the letter withdrawing his resignation on the forenoon of 01-01-1998 is not denied by the respondents. Even otherwise, nothing is placed before the court by the respondents to doubt the integrity of the statement made by the petitioner on oath in paragraph-7 of the affidavit. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner, as a matter of fact, submitted the letter on the forenoon of 01-01-1998 to the vice-Chairman and the Managing Director of the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh. Should it be noted that by the time the vice-Chairman and the Managing Director received the letter of the petitioner withdrawing his resignation, the order passed by the Vice-Chairman and the managing Director on 31-12-1997 accepting the resignation of the petitioner with effect from 01-01-1998 a. n. did not come into force. If that is the factual position that emerges from the materials placed before the Court, the situation is squarely covered by the authorities of the Supreme Court and this Court. The judgment of the Supreme court in Punjab National Bank vs. P. K. Mittal is an authority to state that an employee can withdraw resignation even in a case where resignation is already accepted by the employer until it becomes effective and operative. The judgment of the Supreme court in Punjab National Bank vs. P. K. Mittal is an authority to state that an employee can withdraw resignation even in a case where resignation is already accepted by the employer until it becomes effective and operative. In the instant case, the resignation letter would have become effective only in the afternoon of 01-01-1998 whereas the petitioner submitted the letter withdrawing resignation on the forenoon of 01-01-1998. The Supreme Court in the above judgment in paragraph-8 observed thus:"in 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 in terms of his letter dated 21 st 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 to 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, however, not necessary that there should be any such specific rule. Until the resignation become effective on the terms of the letter read with Regulation 20 it is open to the employee, on general principles 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. There is no such clause here. It is not necessary to labour this point further as it is well settled by the earlier decisions of this court in Raj Kumar vs. Union of India, (1968-3 SCR 857), Union of India vs. Copal Chandra Misra, (1978-3 SCR 12) and Balaram Gupta vs. Union of India, (1987 Suppl. SCC 228 ). " ( 4 ) FURTHER a Constitutional Bench of the supreme Court in Union of India vs. Copal chandra In paragraph-47 opined that in the absence of a legal, constitutional bar, prospective resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective, and it becomes effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office-tenure of the resignor. To the same effect is the opinion of this Court in National Thermal power Corporation vs. S. Partha. To the same effect is the opinion of this Court in National Thermal power Corporation vs. S. Partha. ( 5 ) THE above authorities and several authorities to which references are made in the above judgments clearly go to show that in the absence of constitutional, legal or contractual limitations imposed on the employee, it is always permissible for an employee to withdraw the resignation even if it is accepted by the employer unless the acceptance of resignation has already become effective and operative. In the instant case, as pointed supra, the resignation accepted by the Vice-Chairman and the Managing Director of the Sports authority of Andhra Pradesh would have become effective and operative only on the afternoon of 01-01-1998 whereas the letter withdrawing resignation was submitted by the petitioner to the Vice-Chairman and the managing Director on the forenoon of 01-01-1998 itself. ( 6 ) IN the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the termination of the services of the petitioner with effect from 01-01-1998 a. n. is declared as invalid and illegal. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service. The petitioner is also entitled to all the benefits, pecuniary or otherwise, flowing from this order. The parties are directed to bear their own costs in this writ petition.