JUDGMENT M.H.S. Ansari, J.: The petitioner is an employee of the respondent Bank. As per the voluntary retirement scheme, Annexure P-I, the petitioner being eligible applied on 22.12.2000 for voluntary retirement from service (Annexure P-2). On 28.12.2000, the petitioner made an application for withdrawal of his name from voluntary retirement scheme with a further payer to cancel the previous application for V.R.S. and to allow him to render service till the date of superannuation. 2. According to the petitioner, the last date for filing the application under the aforesaid V.R.S. was 31.12.2000 and, therefore, the withdrawal of the application-dated 28.12.2000 was made well within the time. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the letter of withdrawal, the respondent bank issued a memo dated 12.4.2001 received through 'Fax' on 21.4.2001 intimating the petitioner that request for voluntary retirement from bank service has been accepted by the competent authority and the petitioner will stand relieved from the bank service at the close of office hours on April 30, 2001 and the petitioner was directed to hand over the charge of , key' to the next person authorized by the controlling office (Annexure P-5). 4. Petitioner has relied upon Annexure P-4 being a letter addressed by the Manager to the Chief Manager (P A) enquiring about the fate of the application filed by the petitioner for withdrawal of V.R.S. which was submitted before the last date of application i.e. on 31.12.2000. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order, Annexure P-5, is untenable in law. The petitioner having withdrawn the option for voluntary retirement, the question of acceptance of the petitioner's application under V.R.S. does not arise. Reliance has been placed by the ld. counsel for the petitioner upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Murari Sinha vs. Project and Development India & Anr., reported in AIR 2000 SC 2473 , as also on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy, reported in 2000 (1) SCC 158. 6. On behalf of the respondents an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed wherein it is stated that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 was formulated with a special purpose to shed certain number of employees so that the bank can optimize the human resources and achieve a balanced age and skills profile. 6. On behalf of the respondents an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed wherein it is stated that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 was formulated with a special purpose to shed certain number of employees so that the bank can optimize the human resources and achieve a balanced age and skills profile. Reference has been made to Allahabad Bank Officers Employees' (Service) Regulation, 1979 read with Allahabad Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 which also provides for voluntary retirement and under that scheme, an employee can voluntarily retire from the bank service and in that case he is given all retrial benefits. However, under the V.R.S. 2000, certain more benefits are being given to the employees opting to retire under this special scheme. The amount of ex-gratia being paid to such an employee is as under; "60 days' salary for each completed year of service or salary for the number of months service is left which ever is lower, meaning thereby that in addition to all the benefits that are given to an employee who retires in terms of the earlier scheme, he is getting the above mentioned additional benefit of the ex-gratia payment." 7. The instant scheme was open for a limited period and employees were to give their option within December 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000. In view of the special nature of the scheme, the scheme itself envisages that once an option is given by an employee under this scheme and a notice to that effect has been given to the competent authority, he shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice. 8. It is further stated that the offer and the scheme having been accepted by the petitioner unconditionally and irrevocably and in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the said scheme which includes that the petitioner having once opted to retire under the said scheme and having given notice to that effect shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice and thereby there having being a completed contract to that effect between the parties, the petitioner is under obligation to act on the basis of such promise and contract and he cannot resile from the said contract and withdrawing his notice offering retirement under the said scheme. If it is construed that the petitioner is given a chance to opt out of the scheme after having accepted the same unconditionally and irrevocable, the same would be in contravention of the provisions of the scheme, the very object and purpose of the scheme would be frustrated. 9. Certain relevant provisions of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme need to be noticed. They are as under; "f) An employee, who as opted for to retire under this Scheme and has given notice to that effect to the Competent Authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice. j) The acceptance of the request of Voluntary Retirement is subject to vigilance clearance as also prior settlement/repayment in full of loans, advances, returning of Bank's property and/or any other outstanding due against the employee and payable by the employee to the Bank. Further, the Competent Authority may at its discretion permit continuation of existing loans at public rate to the employees who opt for retirement under this Scheme. r) The bank reserves the right to withdraw this scheme at any time, as it thinks fit and its decision in this respect will be final." 10. Mr. Ananda Mitra, ld. Sr. advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent bank has also drawn the attention of this Court to certain certificates required to be given by the employee in the prescribed application form for voluntary retirement, one of which reads as under: "b) That I hereby offer to seek voluntary retirement/sabbatical leave from the service of the bank in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in ALLAHABAD BANK Employees' Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000/ ALLAHABAD BANK Employees' Sabbatical Leave Scheme 2000, which I accept unconditionally and irrevocably as circulated vide instruction Circular No. 6582/PA/2000/27, dated 28.10.2000." 11. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner made an application under the aforesaid V.R.S. on 22.12.2000 and on 28.12.2000 submitted an application withdrawing his option under the V.R.S. 31.12.2000 is the last date for submission of application for voluntary retirement, which commenced on 1.12.2000. The acceptance of the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was after the withdrawal of the application and the petitioner was relieved from bank's service on 30.4.2001. 12. The acceptance of the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was after the withdrawal of the application and the petitioner was relieved from bank's service on 30.4.2001. 12. In Shambhu Murari Binha's case, supra, the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether it is open to a person having exercised option of voluntary retirement to withdraw the said offer after its acceptance but before it is made effective. The same was answered in the following terms: "From the facts stated above, it would be seen that though the option of voluntary retirement exercised by the appellant by his letter dated 18.10.1995 was accepted by the respondent-management by their letter dated 30.7.1997, the appellant was not relieved from service and he was allowed to continue in service till 26.9.1997, which, for all practical purposes, would be the 'effective date' as it was on this date that he was relieved from service. In the meantime, as pointed out above, the appellant had already withdrawn the offer of voluntary retirement vide his letter dated 7.8.1997. The question, which, therefore, arises in this appeal, is whether it is open to a person having exercised option of voluntary retirement to withdrawn the said offer after its acceptance but before it is made effective. The question is squarely answered by the three decisions, namely, Balaram Gupta vs. Union of India, 1987 (Supp.) SCC 228 : AIR 1987 SC 2354 : 1988 Lab I C 46; J. N. Srivastava vs. Union of India, (1998) 9 SCC 559 : 1998 AIR SCW 4057 : AIR 1999 SC 1571 and Power Finance Corporation Ltd. vs. Pramod Kumar Bhatia, (1997) 4 SCC 280 , in which it was held that the resignation, in spite of its acceptance, can be withdrawn before the 'effective date'. That being so, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside with the direction that the appellant shall be allowed to continue in service with all consequential benefits. There will, however, be no order as to costs." 13. In that case, the date upto, which the petitioner was allowed to continue in service, was construed as the "effective date" for all practical purposes. 14. There will, however, be no order as to costs." 13. In that case, the date upto, which the petitioner was allowed to continue in service, was construed as the "effective date" for all practical purposes. 14. In Wing Commander's case, supra, the Supreme Court considered the contention advanced before it on behalf of the employer that under the policy of the employer, there was no scope for withdrawing the application for premature retirement, once submitted, that in the light of such policy, the employee also gave a certificate that he was aware of the fact that his request for withdrawal will not be accepted. Relying upon the observations in Union of India vs. Gopal Chandra Mishra, reported in 1978 (2) SCC 301 and in Panjab National Banh vs. P.K. Mittal, reported in 1989 (Supp.) (2) SCC 175, it was observed that therein it was held that resignation being a voluntary act of employee, he may chose to resign with immediate effect or with a notice of less than three months if the employer agrees to the same or he may also resign at a future date on the expiry or beyond the period of three months as envisaged under the governing regulation in that case, even though there is no such consent from the employer and that it was always open to the employee to withdraw the same before the date on which the resignation could have become effective. 15. As regard the policy decision that an employee cannot later seek for cancellation of the application once made for premature retirement, the Supreme Court in that case held as under; "The reliance placed upon the so-called policy decision which obligated the respondent to furnish a certificate to the extent that he was fully aware of the fact that he cannot later seek for cancellation of the application once made for premature retirement cannot, in our view, be destructive of the right of the respondent, in law, to withdraw his request for premature retirement before it ever became operative and effective and effected termination of his status and relation with the Department. When the legal position is that much clear it would be futile for the appellants to base their rights on some policy decision of the Department or a mere certificate of the respondent being aware of a particular position which has no sanctity or basis in law to destroy such rights which otherwise inhered in him and available in law. No such deprivation of a substantive right of a person can be denied except on the basis of any statutory provision or rule or regulation. There being none brought to our notice in this case, the claim of the appellants cannot be countenanced in our hands........." 16. Mr. Ananda Mitra, ld. Sr. advocate for the respondent bank sought to distinguish the judgment in Shqmbhu Murari Sinha's case, supra, on the ground that the judgments relied upon by the Supreme Court in that case and based whereon, the decision has been rendered are matters of ordinary resignation. In so far as the Wing Commander's case, supra, is concerned, Mr. Mitra sought to distinguish the same by submitting that it was not a case of premature retirement under voluntary retirement scheme. 17. Mr. Ananda Mitra relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manjushree Pathak vs. The Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2000 (6) SCC 98, contended that under a special measure in the form of a voluntary retirement scheme once an option is exercised by an employee an authority coming within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution has to act reasonably and fairly and when there is no infirmity or impediment in terms of the scheme in considering and accepting the application for voluntary retirement, the authority is bound to accept the same. 18. Elaborating his aforesaid contention Mr. Ananda Mitra submitted that the provisions of the V .R.S. are special provisions and confer certain benefits upon an employee who wishes to avail of the benefits under the said V.R.S. The amounts payable under the scheme constitute consideration payable by the employer to the employee. By that reasoning, it was contended that on the part of the employer an irrevocable offer has been made to the employee and an option is given to be exercised by the employee, if so exercised, a contract comes into being. By that reasoning, it was contended that on the part of the employer an irrevocable offer has been made to the employee and an option is given to be exercised by the employee, if so exercised, a contract comes into being. The employer has in terms of the judgment in Manjushree Pathak's case, supra, no option but to act in terms of the scheme where the employee fulfils the eligibility criteria under the V.R.S. The employee thus having exercised the option under the V.R.S. cannot be permitted to resile or withdraw the said option, his only right is to the benefits specified under the V.R.S. 19. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Chancery Division in Armstrong & Homes Ltd. VS. Holmes & Anr., reported in 1994 (1) All. E.R. 826. The point for consideration in that case was whether the contract for the sale of land which results from the exercise of an option has to be registered as an estate contract under the Land Charges Act, 1972 to preserve priority, notwithstanding that the grant of the option itself had already been so registered as an estate contract. It was held that the original option created an equitable interest in land. It was observed that the said interest was not altered or superseded by some other and different interest on the exercise of the option. It was also observed that the option holder may exercise the option well within the option period but subsequently failed to complete, so that rescission follows. It must be observed that Judge Paul Bekar QC accepted the reasoning of Hoffmenn J. holding that in calling an option an irrevocable offer, or a conditional contract, one is using metaphors or analogies, which should not be pressed too far. The reasoning for the said view have been extracted in the said judgment. To my mind that decision is of little assistance to the respondents in the case on hand pertaining to service jurisprudence where the jural relationship is governed not so much by contract as by statutory rules where the respondent employer, as in the instant case, is an agency or of State instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Its employees are entitled to invoke the same standards and right to similar protection, which appertains to public employment. Its employees are entitled to invoke the same standards and right to similar protection, which appertains to public employment. (See- AIR 1980 SC 840 , Managing Director UP Warehousing Corporation vs. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee). 20. Mr. Ananda Mitra, Id. Sr. Advocate may be right in submitting that Wing Commander's case, supra, was not one, which pertained to voluntary retirement scheme. However, that cannot be the distinguishing feature alone. In the said judgment, the ratio of the Supreme Court is that an employee had a right and was entitled to withdraw or revoke his request for retirement before it really and effectively became effective. Such substantive right of the employee could not be denied except on the basis of any statutory provision or rule or regulation. In the matter on hand also, no such statutory provision has been placed before Court. 21. Apposite in this context is an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Bombay Finance Corporation Ltd. vs. Pramod Kumar Bhatia, reported in Judgement Today 1997 (4) SC 300. In that case, the employee-respondent had applied for voluntary retirement pursuant to the scheme framed by the Corporation-appellant to relieve the surplus staff. Initially by proceedings dated December 20, 1994, the Corporation accepted the resignation subject to condition as to the clearance of the outstanding dues. The acceptance was to be given effect from December 31, 1994. In the meanwhile the Corporation realizing the mistake committed by it for effecting the voluntary retirement scheme, which did not apply to the Corporation since there was no surplus staff, the Corporation withdrew the scheme. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the employee acquired a vested right after acceptance of the voluntary retirement by proceedings dated December 20, 1994. The Supreme Court held as under: "It is now settled legal position that unless the employee is relieved of the duty, after acceptance of the offer of voluntary retirement or resignation, jural relationship of the employee and the employer does not come to an end. Since the order accepting the voluntary retirement was a conditional one, the conditions ought to have been complied with. Before the conditions could be complied with, the appellant withdrew the scheme. Consequently, the order accepting voluntary retirement did not become effective. Thereby no vested right has been created in favour of the respondent. Since the order accepting the voluntary retirement was a conditional one, the conditions ought to have been complied with. Before the conditions could be complied with, the appellant withdrew the scheme. Consequently, the order accepting voluntary retirement did not become effective. Thereby no vested right has been created in favour of the respondent. The High Court, therefore, was no right in holding that the respondent has acquired a vested right and, therefore, the appellant has no right to withdraw the scheme subsequently." 22. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court, cited supra, I cannot accept the contention advanced on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner having exercised the option under the voluntary retirement scheme, cannot be allowed to withdraw the same or to continue in service. 23. In the result, the writ application is allowed in part and the order dated 12.4.2001 impugned in the instant writ application, being Annexure P-5 be and is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, directions shall issue to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith without any break in service. 24. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Stay of operation of the judgment has been prayed for on behalf of the respondents. Considered the said prayer and it is rejected. Let the urgent xerox certified copy be furnished on priority basis to the parties. Writ application allowed.