JUDGMENT 1. - Meaningful question springing for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether the employee having accepted to retire and having taken retiral benefits without any protest, reservation or demur can turn round and say that his voluntary retirement ought not to have been accepted and his case for withdrawal of the same could be considered? 2. This question emerges in the circumstances set out below. Vide letter dated January 15, 1998 the petitioner sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds with effect from April 30, 1998 and made request for payment of terminal benefits including pension as per Bank rules. Request to wave the notice period of 3 months as minimum as possible was also made. In the said letter the petitioner also sought appointment for his son in clerical grade on compassionate grounds. Respondent Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. vide letter dated April 15, 1998 informed the petitioner that the request for voluntary retirement made by the petitioner shall be placed before the Board of Directors in their ensuing meeting and the decision shall be informed to him in due course. The petitioner thereafter wrote a letter to the Assistant General Manager of the respondent Bank on July 24, 1998 that his request of voluntary retirement be treated as withdrawn. In turn the respondent Bank vide letter dated July 29, 1998 informed the petitioner that request for voluntary retirement may only be withdrawn with the prior approval of the competent authority and accordingly the letter of the petitioner dated July 24, 1998 seeking withdrawal of voluntary retirement was placed before the Board of Directors but they did not accept it. Request of the petitioner seeking appointment of his son on compassionate grounds was also declined. The Board of Directors accepted the prayer of voluntary retirement made by the petitioner vide letter dated January 15, 1998 and relieved him at the close of office hours on July 31, 1998 from the services of the Bank.The petitioner seeks to quash the afore quoted letter dated July 29, 1998 of the respondent Bank and prays that he be reinstated in the service.Respondents contested the writ petition by filing reply. It was pleaded that the petitioner vide letter dated July 31, 1998 wrote to the Assistant General Manager that since the Bank had decided to relieve him on the close of office hour on July 31, 1998 his retirement benefits may be released. After the said letter the petitioner took the amount from the Bank as under As against the gratuity Rs. 3,32,023.57 As against the P.F. Rs. 3,94,487.50 As against leave encashment Rs. 1,41,888.62 Rs. 8,68,399.69 The Bank has also sanctioned pension to the petitioner, in the rejoinder the petitioner averred that for his survival the amount was necessary and because of this he wrote a letter. The petitioner is ready to refund the amount of P.F. the leave encashment is an amount for which the petitioner is otherwise also entitled. 3. Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition placed reliance on U.O.I. v. Gopal Chandra Misra ( AIR 1978 SC 694 ) : [1978(1) SLR 521 (SC)] , Bal Ram Gupta v. U.O.I. ( AIR 1987 SC 2354 ) and Krishnamber Jha v. U.0.I. (2000 Lab. I.C. 830) . 4. On the other hand Mr. R.K. Kala, learned counsel for respondent urged that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the impugned order dated July 29, 1998 by his conduct as he had received the retiral benefits without any protest. It was also contended that in view of Rule 29(4) of the Bank of Rajasthan Limited (Employees) Pension Rules, 1996 (for short 1996 Rules) the petitioner was precluded from withdrawing his notice of voluntary retirement except with the specific approval of the appointing authority. Reliance was placed on H.C. Jain v. State Bank of India (1997 (7) SLR 780) , Shimbhu Dayal v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. (1997 (7) SLR 142) , Sushil Kumar Sarkar v. Chairman M.D. Hindustan Steel Works (1999 LLR 755) : [1998(7) SLR 571 (Cal.)] , Jayakodi Jacob v. P.O. Labour Court ( 1999 (I) LLJ 1025 ) and Raghunath Patnaik v. State Bank of India (1997 (III) LLJ 107) . 5. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 6. A look at the letter dated July' 31, 1998 demonstrates that the petitioner on his own accord wrote to the Bank to release his retiral benefits and thereafter he received the amount in the sum of Rs. 8,68,399.69 without any protest. 5. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 6. A look at the letter dated July' 31, 1998 demonstrates that the petitioner on his own accord wrote to the Bank to release his retiral benefits and thereafter he received the amount in the sum of Rs. 8,68,399.69 without any protest. From the language used in the letter by the petitioner it appears that he initially accepted the decision taken by the Bank. The petitioner wrote thus "Dear Sir, Since the Bank has decided to relieve me at the close of office hour on date 31.7.1998 from the services of the Bank you are, therefore requested to please release me the all retirement benefits i.e. Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave encashment, Pension and commutation amount. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, R.K. Rastogi Chief Manager (Vig.)". 7. Admittedly, the petitioner sought voluntary retirement on Jan. 15, 1998 and sought withdrawal of notice on July 24, 1998. Rule 29 (4) of 1996 Rules provides thus : "(4) An employee, who has elected to retire under this rule and given 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 such withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement." 8. In Balram Gupta's case (supra) notice seeking voluntary retirement was sent on December 24, 1980 and intended date of retirement was March 31, 1981.On January 31, 1981 notice for withdrawal was communicated. By order dated January 20, 1981 Balram Gupta was allowed to retire prospectively w.e.f. afternoon of March 31, 1981. That was a case under Rule 48 A (4) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 which is pari materia to Rule 29(4) of 1969 Rules. Interpreting Rule 48 A(4) their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated thus:- "In this Case the guidelines are that ordinarily permission should not be granted unless the officer concerned 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. In the facts of the instant case such indication has been given. The appellant has stated that on the persistent and personal requests of the staff members he had dropped the idea of seeking voluntary retirement. In the facts of the instant case such indication has been given. The appellant has stated that on the persistent and personal requests of the staff members he had dropped the idea of seeking voluntary retirement. We do not see how it could not be a good and valid reason..... In the modern age we should not put embargo upon people's choice or freedom... The administration has now taken a long time by its own attitude to communicate the matter. For this purpose the respondents is to blame and not the appellant. Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Balram Gupta and put him back to his job." In the instant case the petitioner was informed by the respondent Bank on April 5, 1998 that his request for voluntary retirement shall be placed before the Board of Directors in their ensuing meeting. As already stated that the petitioner in his notice of retirement had mentioned the intended date of retirement as April 30, 1998. The meetings of Board of Directors of the Bank were held on May 13, 1998 and June 27, 1998 but the notice of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement was not placed in the meetings. When intended date expired and no decision was taken by the respondents, the petitioner on July 24, 1998 decided to withdraw the notice and informed the Bank accordingly. The respondent Bank took a long time by its own attitude to communicate the decision therefore it is to blame and not the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case the respondent Bank is not entitled to derive advantage of Rule 29(4) of 1996 Rules.But there is a distinguishable feature in the instant case. Here the petitioner as soon as he received the intimation from the Bank that his request to withdraw the notice of retirement was declined and he stood retired, a request was made by him on July 31, 1998 to release his retiral benefits. Not only this the petitioner received a sum of Rs. 8,68,399.69 from the Bank against the gratuity. P.F. and leave encashment and his pension was also sanctioned. Not only this the petitioner received a sum of Rs. 8,68,399.69 from the Bank against the gratuity. P.F. and leave encashment and his pension was also sanctioned. Whereas in Balram Gupta's case (supra) a look at pare 7 of the judgment demonstrates that Balram Gupta, after communication of the order of retirement sent the gratuity form for claiming his retiring benefits but instead of claiming retiral benefits he decided to meet the authority concerned and requested him that his case may be considered on merits and the department should not "hush up" the matters like this, but no heed was paid by the authority. 9. Placing reliance on Krishnamber Jha v. U.O.I. (supra) Mr. Ajay Rastogi learned counsel canvassed that even after accepting the retiral benefits the petitioner can assail the order of retirement, I am not impressed by this argument. In Krishnamber Jha's case the retiral benefits were offered after filing of the writ petition. Learned Single Judge of Patna High Court while admitting the writ petition gave liberty to the petitioner to receive the balance amount and made it clear that filing of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner to receive the balance amount of provident fund and any other amount. The case is therefore distinguishable. 10. Division Bench of Madras High Court comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil (as he then was) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Balasubramaniam in Jayakodi Jacob's case (supra) propounded that once option of voluntary retirement is exercised and benefits received nothing remains to be done. 11. Learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court in Sushil K. Sarkar v. Chairman, [ 1998(7) SLR 571 (Cal.)] (supra) held that, "Having accepted the amount payable under the voluntary retirement scheme, the petitioner is estopped and precluded from questioning the acceptance of his offer of voluntary retirement." 12. Division Bench of Orissa High Court in Raghunath Patnaik v. State Bank of India (supra) held that where-after the acceptance of prayer of voluntary retirement the employee applied and was paid all dues, if will be difficult to accept the contention of the employee that since he withdraw the notice of voluntary retirement, he should be deemed to be continuing in service. 13. 13. The petitioner after having applied and accepted retiral benefit without any protest, reservation or demur, in my considered opinion, is estopped and precluded from questioning the acceptance of his offer of voluntary retirement. 14. In view of what I have discussed hereinabove I do not find any merit in the writ petition, it is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******