AR. LAKSHMANAN, C. J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri C. V. Ramulu, the learned senior Standing Counsel for Central government, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. T. V. V. S. Murthy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. ( 2 ) THE General Manager, Telecom district, West Godavari, Eluru and two others are the petitioners in this Writ petition. Being aggrieved against the order dated 6-11-2000 passed by the Central administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O. A. No. 743 of 2000, the present Writ petition has been filed to quash the said order. ( 3 ) IT is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the respondent herein while working as Chief telephone Supervisor at Trunk Exchange, tadepalligudem was relieved on 28-4-1990 to work on deputation basis at Vijayawada for a period of two years on her specific request on domestic grounds. She, however, continued to work on deputation at vijayawada even after 28-4-1992 unauthorisedly. When she was asked to report back to Tadepalligudem on several occasions, she reported to West Godavari telecom District only on 10-6-1999. It is evident from the record that out of 146 days after joining in West Godavari Telecom district, she has worked only for 19 days. While so, the respondent submitted a representation dated 2-8-1999 seeking voluntary retirement, wherein she requested the General Manager, Telecom, Eluru SSA - 1st petitioner herein - to waive the stipulated notice period of three months and allow her to retire as early as possible. The General manager accepted her offer to retire voluntarily, on 20-9-1999. While so, she conveyed her intention of withdrawing the earlier notice vide her subsequent representations dated 14-9-1999 and 20-9-1999. But, according to the Department, only the direct copy of the representation dated 20-9-1999 of withdrawal of her notice for voluntary retirement was received and the copy sent through proper channel was received by the competent authority on 27-9-1999 by which time the approval for voluntary retirement had already been conveyed by the competent authority. But, according to the Department, only the direct copy of the representation dated 20-9-1999 of withdrawal of her notice for voluntary retirement was received and the copy sent through proper channel was received by the competent authority on 27-9-1999 by which time the approval for voluntary retirement had already been conveyed by the competent authority. In fact, the General Manager, Telecom District, west Godavari addressed a letter to the respondent dated 20-9-1999 advising her to submit pension papers and the request for cancelling the earlier representation for voluntary retirement was received subsequently by the General Manager, telecom, West Godavari District only on 27-9-1999, i. e. , after the earlier application of the respondent for voluntary retirement was accepted by the competent authority. ( 4 ) RULE 48-A of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) deals with the cases of voluntary retirement. According to the said rule, at any time after a Government servant has completed 20 years qualifying service he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. Ho wever, according to these provisions, a Government servant who has elected to retire under Rule 48-A of the Rules shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority, provided that the request for withdrawal shall be within the intended date of his retirement. In the instant case, the respondent opted for voluntary retirement on 2-8-1999 with a specific request to waive the notice period of 3 months. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned senior Standing counsel for Central Government that the rule provides for waiving such notice, subject to the discretion of the appointing authority and accordingly, the appointing authority has approved the voluntary retirement of the respondent by 20-9-1999 and sent the letter on the same date asking the respondent to submit the pension papers etc. , and a formal communication was sent to the respondent on 11-10-1999, as such, it cannot be treated that the respondent withdrew her notice before it was accepted. The reason is that the respondent herself requested to waive the notice period of 3 months and even in such a case it is not as a matter of right to the respondent but is subject to the approval of the appointing authority. The reason is that the respondent herself requested to waive the notice period of 3 months and even in such a case it is not as a matter of right to the respondent but is subject to the approval of the appointing authority. In view of the above, through proceedings dated 2-11-1999 the petitioners rejected the respondent s request made vide her letter dated 20-9-1999 and relieved her from duty on 3-11-1999. ( 5 ) THE respondent filed O. A. No. 743 of 2000 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, hyderabad seeking a relief of calling for the records relating to the letters dated 11-10-1999, 2-11-1999 and 3-11-1999 of the petitioners herein retiring the respondent and quash them as arbitrary, illegal and are in violation of the settled legal position in that regard and consequently to direct the petitioners herein to reinstate her into service from 3-11-1999 with all consequential benefits. The petitioners herein filed a reply before the Tribunal. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal after hearing both sides allowed the O. A. vide its order dated 6-11-2000 with the following directions:" (A) The impugned letter dated 2-11-1999 is hereby set aside. (b) The applicant shall be reinstated into service and continued till she attains the age of superannuation. (c) She is entitled to all the back wages from 3-11-1999 onwards till she is reinstated in accordance with the law. (d) Time for compliance is 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. " ( 7 ) THIS Writ petition has been filed against the above order of the Tribunal. (c) She is entitled to all the back wages from 3-11-1999 onwards till she is reinstated in accordance with the law. (d) Time for compliance is 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. " ( 7 ) THIS Writ petition has been filed against the above order of the Tribunal. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions in support of the Writ Petition: (A) The relief granted by the Tribunal is beyond the scope of the prayer of the respondent in her O. A. before the Tribunal, in which the respondent prayed for reinstatement into service from 3-11-1999 whereas the Tribunal granted the relief of reinstatement and a mandate to continue her till she attains the age of superannuation; (B) That the Tribunal failed to take cognizance of the fact that the respondent in her notice dated 2-8-1999 for voluntary retirement had requested for waiver of minimum notice period of 3 months and such being the case, the contention of the respondent in her o. A. No. 743 of 2000 that she has a right to withdraw her notice of voluntary retirement before the intended date of retirement, has no legal standing, since there is no specific intended date and any date subsequent to her letter dated 2-8-1999 is the intended date for her retirement; and (C) That the respondent though originally belonged to West godavari Telecom District, worked in Vijayawada SSA unauthorisedlyand when she was forced to come back to West Godavari SSA, she performed her duties quite reluctantly and out of 146 days of her working in West Godavari SSA she hardly worked for 19 days and was on leave on medical grounds for most of the time and when she was asked to undergo medical examination, to avoid the consequent action of the department, she preferred voluntary retirement even without notice period and the same was accepted and when she was asked to submit her pension papers, she submitted a representation seeking withdrawal of her notice for voluntary retirement; thus, it is submitted that the respondent is trying to play hide and seek game with the Department and caused undue hardship. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent submitted that when once the voluntary retirement notice is withdrawn by the respondent, she is entitled to continue in service till the date of her superannuation and also entitled to all the monetary benefits and that the respondent is entitled to withdraw the notice before the expiry of the effective date and, therefore, the order passed by the petitioners herein rejecting the request of the respondent for withdrawal of the voluntary retirement application is bad in law. He further submitted that the tribunal has rightly passed the order accepting the contention of the respondent and, therefore, she is entitled to continue in service till her superannuation with all monetary benefits. ( 10 ) RULE 48-A of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 deals with retirement on completion of 20 years qualifying service. The said rule provides that at any time after a government servant has completed 20 years of qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. Sub-rule (2) of the said Rule provides that the notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority. Proviso to sub-rule (2) provides that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. Clause (a) of sub- rule (3-A) provides that a Government servant referred to in sub-rule (1) may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons therefor and clause (b) of Rule (3-A) provides that on receipt of a request under clause (a), the appointing authority subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), may consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the Government servant shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the period of notice of three months. Sub-Rule (4) of rule 48-A is also relevant to be noticed in the present context. The said sub-rule provides that 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. The proviso to the said sub-rule is also relevant to be noticed in the present context. It says that the request for withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement. ( 11 ) WE have perused the notice of the respondent for voluntary retirement dated 2-8-1999, in which she has given the reasons as to why she has made the application for voluntary retirement. In this letter, she requested the General Manager - 1st petitioner herein - to allow her to retire either from the date of completion of the stipulated period of 3 months or as early as possible. The three months period expires by 2-11-1999. However, by letter dated 20-9-1999 she has requested for withdrawal of notice for voluntary retirement addressed to the 1st petitioner herein stating that due to the change of domestic circumstances and on reconsideration, she withdrew the notice of voluntary retirement submitted by her on 2-8-1999. As already noticed, sub-rule (4) of rule 48-A of the Rules enables the government servant, who has elected to retire under this rule, to withdraw the request for voluntary retirement before the intended date of her retirement. Therefore, the order passed by the petitioners herein rejecting the request of the respondent to withdraw the voluntary retirement application is bad in law and against the tenor of sub-rule (4) of Rule 48-A of the rules. ( 12 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent in support of his contention relied upon the decision rendered in J. N. Srivastava v. Union of India. In the said decision, the Supreme court has observed that even if the voluntary retirement application is moved by an employee and gets accepted by the authority within the time fixed, before the date of retirement is reached, the employee has a right to withdraw the proposal for voluntary retirement. Though the management has accepted the request of the respondent for voluntary retirement, it comes into effect only after the expiry of 3 months. Though the management has accepted the request of the respondent for voluntary retirement, it comes into effect only after the expiry of 3 months. But, in this case, before the expiry of the said period of 3 months, the employee has a right to withdrew the same and accordingly, the respondent withdrew the request for voluntary retirement. Therefore, as already pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner- authorities have not considered the request of the respondent herein for withdrawal of voluntary retirement in accordance with the rules and they have failed to consider the same in its proper perspective. ( 13 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, we hold that the refusal to permit the respondent to withdraw the letter of resignation was bad in law since the withdrawal of resignation was long before the effective date and that the dissolution of the contract of employment would be brought about only on the date indicated in the letter of voluntary retirement and, therefore, in our opinion, the respondent was entitled to be continued in Government employment till the date of her superannuation and also entitled to all the monetary benefits. ( 14 ) IT was argued by the learned senior standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the petitioners that though the department was about to initiate disciplinary action against the respondent herein, who was on leave on medical grounds for most of the time, she had preferred the voluntary retirement application even seeking to waive the notice period. In view of the reasons stated by the respondent in her letter for voluntary retirement, the management accepted her request. Now that the letter of request for voluntary retirement has been withdrawn and accepted by the Tribunal, it is always open to the management to launch disciplinary action against the respondent herein in a manner known to law. ( 15 ) IT is true that the Tribunal while allowing the O. A. observed that the respondent herein is entitled to continue in service till she attains the age of superannuation and also entitled to all the back wages from 3-11-1999 onwards. ( 15 ) IT is true that the Tribunal while allowing the O. A. observed that the respondent herein is entitled to continue in service till she attains the age of superannuation and also entitled to all the back wages from 3-11-1999 onwards. We make it clear that the above observation, does not preclude the management from permitting the respondent to continue in service till she attains the age of superannuation; but, at the same time, the petitioners are at liberty to initiate departmental action against the respondent for the lapses, if any, if they so desire. ( 16 ) THE Writ Petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. In view of the order now passed, the petitioners are directed to reinstate the respondent in service with immediate effect. It is needless to mention that the interim order granted by this Court on 19-6-2001 stands vacated. No order as to costs.