JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This case presents the question whether a letter of voluntary retirement could be withdrawn even if no approval was granted for its withdrawal before it has come into effect. 2. Petitioner is the appellant before us. She is a permanent teacher in the L. P. School, Parpacode, Ernakulam District, an aided school owned and managed by the staff of the school. First respondent represents the Manager cum Headmistress of the school. Petitioner has bee working as P. D. Teacher since 1964 and was the seniormost teacher eligible to be appointed as Headmistress of the school. Due to health reasons she decided to relinquish her claim in favour of the first respondent. Petitioner's date of birth is 6th May 1946 and she is due to retire on superannuation on 31st May, 2001. 3. Petitioner due to health problems had to take leave intermittently. This was objected to by the first respondent. She later applied for leave to the first respondent on 25th February 2000 for a period of six months with effect from 4th October 1999 to 24th March 2000 and submitted an application for voluntary retirement expressing her desire to retire from service with effect from 1st August 2000. She also requested the first respondent to make all arrangements for disbursement of her pensionary benefits. Petitioner on expiry of leave period joined duty on 25th March 2000. She noticed that no action was taken for forwarding her pension papers to the second respondent till last week of June 2000. No sanction was also accorded by the second respondent on her request for voluntary retirement till 10th July 2000. Under such circumstances she decided to withdraw her application for voluntary retirement before it has come into effect i.e., on 1st August 2000. She submitted the notice for withdrawal on 11th July 2000 to the first respondent with advance copy to the second respondent. 4. The first respondent refused to accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal and consequently the same was sent to the second respondent by registered post acknowledgement due. First respondent refused to take delivery of the registered letter and the same was returned to the petitioner on 26th July 2000 unclaimed. 4. The first respondent refused to accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal and consequently the same was sent to the second respondent by registered post acknowledgement due. First respondent refused to take delivery of the registered letter and the same was returned to the petitioner on 26th July 2000 unclaimed. Petitioner earlier received a letter, dated 14th July 2000 from the first respondent on 18th July 2000 enclosing order No. D 861/2000, dated 10th July 2000 of the Assistant Educational Officer according sanction to the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement with effect from 31st July 2000. Petitioner then made a representation, Ext. P-6 before the first respondent to allow her to continue in service on the strength of letter of withdrawal from voluntary retirement which would be effective only from 1st August 2000. Since no action was taken she approached this court by the present writ petition on 27th July 2000 before the date on which the retirement had to be effective. Writ petition came up for admission on 28th July 2000. Petitioner took out notice by special messenger and the writ petition was posted to 2nd August 2000. Notice by special messenger was served on the first respondent on 29th July 2000 and the case was posted to 2nd August 2000. Steps were however taken to relieve the petitioner and appointment was effected on 1st August 2000. In the circumstances petitioner prayed for a direction to the respondents to allow her to continue in service till her retirement on 31st May 2001. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. Counter affidavit states that the petitioner is in the habit of taking leave due to health reasons on various spells which according to the first respondent would affect the functioning of the school. The first respondent did not receive the letter of withdrawal of voluntary retirement since she was on casual leave on 12th, 13th and 14th of July 2000. Service Books and other records of the petitioner were not available in the school and the petitioner was asked to submit relevant records. Petitioner failed to submit the same in time which delayed processing of pension papers. First respondent also did not recommend the request for voluntary retirement to the Assistant Educational Officer. Service Books and other records of the petitioner were not available in the school and the petitioner was asked to submit relevant records. Petitioner failed to submit the same in time which delayed processing of pension papers. First respondent also did not recommend the request for voluntary retirement to the Assistant Educational Officer. Letter: of voluntary retirement was returned by the Assistant Educational Officer on 13th March 2000 for re-submission along with Service Book of the petitioner. Later on the recommendation of the first respondent second respondent passed an order on 10th July 2000 accepting the request of the petitioner to voluntarily retire from service with effect from 31st July 2000 as per R.56(i) of Part III of the K.S.R. Further, it was pointed out that staff of the school has also given a send off to the petitioner in which she participated. On retirement of the petitioner with effect from 31st July 2000 it was pointed out a R.51-A claimant was appointed and she joined duty. 6. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the second respondent also. It was pointed out that Manager of the school by letter, dated 1st March 2000 forwarded the application received from the petitioner for voluntary retirement to the Assistant Educational Officer. Manager also recommended the request for voluntary retirement to the second respondent. Application was returned to the Headmistress with a direction to re-submit the same with the Service Book of the petitioner. Service Book of the petitioner was with the Government for sanction of leave application. Since the authority to sanction leave without allowance exceeding 120 days is Government, the leave was sanctioned as per G.O. (Rt.) No. 2045/2000/G. Edn., dated 23rd May 2000 and the Service Book was submitted by the Headmistress for sanction of voluntary retirement on 8th June 2000. The request for voluntary retirement was sanctioned as per R.56 (1) of Part III K.S.R. as per proceedings, dated 10th July 2000. The same was forwarded to the Accountant General, Trivandrum by registered post. As per rules the petitioner has to give notice in writing to the appointing authority or the pension sanctioning authority of his intention to retire at least three months before the date on which she wishes to retire. The same was forwarded to the Accountant General, Trivandrum by registered post. As per rules the petitioner has to give notice in writing to the appointing authority or the pension sanctioning authority of his intention to retire at least three months before the date on which she wishes to retire. Manager is the appointing authority of the school and recommendation of the Manager is necessary for processing the application of the petitioner for onward transmission to Government for sanction. Hence the office was not in a position to take action on the advance copy submitted by the teacher. It was therefore stated that there was no delay on the part of the second respondent. 7. Learned Single Judge did not accept the contention of the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition taking the view that an employee who has expressed her willingness to retire voluntarily is precluded from withdrawing her application to retire voluntarily without the sanction of the Government under the recommendation of the authority competent to fill the appointment. 8. We heard Sri P. G. Sebastian, counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri E. S. M. Kabeer for the first respondent and Government Pleader Sri C. K. Pavithran for respondents 2 to 4. 9. Petitioner had submitted application for voluntary retirement on 25th February 2000 to be effective from 1st August 2000. Request to process the pension papers was also made. Request was made at a time when she was on leave. She joined duty on 25th March 2000 before the expiry of the leave. She found that her pension papers were not processed and no sanction was accorded by the second respondent on her request for voluntary retirement. She therefore made a request on 11th July 2000 to the first respondent as well as the Assistant Educational Officer expressing her desire to withdraw her application for voluntary retirement which would come into effect only on 1st August 2000. In the letter of withdrawal she has stated as follows: "I had submitted application for retiring from service voluntarily from 1st August 2000 to the H. M. cum Manager, L.P.S., Parpacode, 6 months back. But my application was unnecessarily held up by the H.M."Cum-Manager and forwarded to the authorities very recently only. Sanction for voluntary retirement has not been forwarded from the school so far. So there is every chance of delaying my pension sanctioned timely. But my application was unnecessarily held up by the H.M."Cum-Manager and forwarded to the authorities very recently only. Sanction for voluntary retirement has not been forwarded from the school so far. So there is every chance of delaying my pension sanctioned timely. Meanwhile, at the verge of retirement proposed I have been deputed for the course of D.P.E.P. at Perumbavoor during the month of June 2000. My application for withdrawal from my P. F. on N.R.I, prepared and submitted on 7th July 2000 has not been forwarded to the sanctioning authority as the H.M. is not certain whether it can be sanctioned or not as my application for voluntary retirement is pending. Under the circumstances and reasons stated above, I feel better to continue in service till the date of my superannuation pension than retiring early. I therefore request that my application for voluntary retirement may kindly be cancelled and I may be permitted to continue in service till the date of superannuation pension." 10. The above letter was forwarded to the first respondent by registered post acknowledgement due. Documents produced by the petitioner would indicate that the application was returned to the petitioner on 26th July 2000 since first respondent refused to take delivery of the registered letter. She then received a letter dated 14th July 2000 from the first respondent along with a letter, dated 10th July 2000 of the Assistant Educational Officer informing the petitioner that her application for voluntary retirement, dated 25th February 2000 was sanctioned with effect from 31st July 2000 as per R.56(i) of Part III of the K.S.R. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's letter of voluntary retirement would come into effect only on 1st August 2000, before that date the petitioner is legally entitled to withdraw the same. Reliance was placed on the decision of the apex court reported in Balram Gupta v. Union of India 1987 Supp. SCC 228 and J. N. Srivastava v. Union of India and another (1998) 9 SCC 559 . 11. Reliance was placed on the decision of the apex court reported in Balram Gupta v. Union of India 1987 Supp. SCC 228 and J. N. Srivastava v. Union of India and another (1998) 9 SCC 559 . 11. The impugned order according sanction for voluntary retirement was passed under R.56 (i) of Part III K.S R. R.56 of Part III K.S.R. stipulates the grant of retiring pension to an employee who retires voluntarily after 20 years of qualifying service, subject to the following conditions: (i) He shall give notice in writing to the appointing authority or the pension sanctioning authority of his intention to retire at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire. (ii) ................................................ (iii) ................................................ (iv) Voluntary retirement of an employee shall become effective on the grant of permission to retire by the authority competent to make appointment to the post: Provided that where the authority competent to make appointment to the post does not refuse to grant permission for retirement before the date on which the employee wishes to retire specified in the notice under clause (i), the retirement shall become effective from the date specified in the notice. Rule 56 (iv) of Part III K.S.R. states that voluntary retirement of an employee shall become effective on the grant of permission to retire by the authority competent to make appointment to the post. Proviso to the above rule says that where the authority competent to make appointment to the post does not refuse to grant permission for retirement before the date on which the employee wishes to retire specified in the notice under clause (i), the retirement shall become effective from the date specified in the notice. The afore-mentioned provisions indicate that voluntary retirement of an employee shall become effective on the grant of permission to retire by the authority competent to make appointment to the post. In the instant case first respondent is the Headmaster cum Manager competent to make appointment. No document has been produced by the first respondent granting permission to her request for voluntary retirement. What is discernible from Exts. P-4 and P-5 is that first respondent Manager has recommended the application of the petitioner and not granting permission for voluntary retirement. Recommendation of an application for voluntary retirement and granting permission are entirely different. No document has been produced by the first respondent granting permission to her request for voluntary retirement. What is discernible from Exts. P-4 and P-5 is that first respondent Manager has recommended the application of the petitioner and not granting permission for voluntary retirement. Recommendation of an application for voluntary retirement and granting permission are entirely different. The word 'recommend' as per the Chamber's 20th Century Dictionary is to command or introduce as suitable for acceptance, favour, appointment or choice; to make acceptable. On the other hand, the words grant "permission" means accord sanction. As per R.56 (i) it is the appointing authority who has to grant permission and not the Educational Authority under the Kerala Education Act. Proviso to R.56 (iv) says that where the authority competent to make appointment to the post does not refuse to grant permission for retirement before the date on which the employee wishes to retire specified in the notice under clause (i), the retirement shall become effective from the date specified in the notice. We may indicate in this case the effective date on which the voluntary retirement has to come into effect was 1st August 2000. On failure to accord sanction to the request of voluntary retirement by the appointing authority the same would be effective in this case on 1st August 2000. If the competent authority had granted permission for voluntary retirement to the petitioner we have to take that the same would have come into effect only on 1st August 2000. In the instant case the petitioner had withdrawn the letter of voluntary retirement on 10th July 2000, that is prior to 1st August 2000. Withdrawal of voluntary retirement is dealt with in ruling 2 of R.56 which reads as follows: "An employee who has elected to retire under this rule and has given necessary intimation to that effect to the competent authority, shall bo precluded from withdrawing his election subsequently except with the sanction of the Government under the recommendation of the authority competent to fill the appointment, provided his request for withdrawal is made within the intended date of his retirement." In this case the petitioner had made request for voluntary retirement on 25th February 2000. The first part of the ruling says that the employee shall be precluded from withdrawing his election subsequently except with the sanction of the Government under the recommendation of the authority competent to fill up the appointment. Person competent to fill up the appointment is the first respondent, the manager. Admittedly he had not recommended for withdrawal of the letter of voluntary retirement to the Government even though the request for withdrawal was made within the intended date of the petitioner's retirement, i. e. 1st August 2000. The question remains to be answered is whether the petitioner has got the legal right to withdraw the letter of voluntary retirement before it has come into effect. 12. An identical question came up for consideration before the apex court in Balram Gupta v. Union of India 1987 Supp. SCC 228. The court was dealing with the scope of R.48-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Relevant portion of the same is extracted below: "48-A. Retirement on completion of 20 years' qualifying service. (1) At any time after a Government servant has completed twenty years' qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance of the appointing authority." Provided 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. In the above case the employee after completing 20 years service wrote a letter, dated 24th December 1980 to the appointing authority seeking voluntary retirement on 31st March 1981. He wrote that the notice period of three months be treated from 1st January 1981. By an order, dated 20th January 1981 he was allowed to retire voluntarily from service prospectively with effect from afternoon of 31st March 1981. In the meantime on 31st January 1981 the appellant withdrew his notice on ground that on account of persistent and personal requests from the staff members he had changed his mind. The appellant was relieved by order, dated 31st March 1981 in which it was also mentioned that his withdrawal application was considered and was found not acceptable. The authority competent had disallowed his request. The appellant was relieved by order, dated 31st March 1981 in which it was also mentioned that his withdrawal application was considered and was found not acceptable. The authority competent had disallowed his request. Under R.48-A (4) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules a Government Servant who has elected to retire under the 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 apex court allowed the request of the employee and held as follows: "We would advert to certain guidelines and examine if these were violated later. It is only stated that the application for withdrawal was considered in the light of the said guidelines and the request was turned down appropriately. It was further stated that the notice of termination of service or of retirement is a unilateral act whereby the officer communicates his intention to dissolve the contract of service and unlike resignation it operates without the consent of the other party. It is, therefore, submitted that once notice was given it became operative immediately, if it was received by the Government and automatically brought about the dissolution of contract after the expiry of the notice period. We are unable to accept this submission and this position. The dissolution would be brought about only on the date indicate, i.e. 31st March 1981; upto that the appellant was and is a Government employee. There is no unilateral termination of the same prior thereto. He is at liberty, and entitled independently without sub-rule (4) of R.48-A of the Pension Rules as a Government Servant, to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement. In this respect it stands at par with the letter of resignation." The apex court further held as follows: "It may be a salutary requirement: that a Government Servant cannot withdraw a letter of resignation or of voluntary retirement at his sweet will and put the Government into difficulties by writing letters of resignation or retirement and withdrawing the same immediately without rhyme or reason. Therefore for the purpose of appeal we do not propose to consider the question whether sub-rule (4) of R.48-A of the Pension Rules is valid or not. If properly exercised the power of the Government may be a salutary rule. Approval however is not ipse dixit of the approving authority. Therefore for the purpose of appeal we do not propose to consider the question whether sub-rule (4) of R.48-A of the Pension Rules is valid or not. If properly exercised the power of the Government may be a salutary rule. Approval however is not ipse dixit of the approving authority. The approving authority who has the statutory authority must act reasonably and rationally. The only reason put forward here is that the appellant had not indicated his reasons for withdrawal. This, in our opinion, was sufficiently indicated that he was prevailed upon by his friends and the appellant had a second look at the matter. This is not an unreasonable reason." The court also held: "It is true that he was resigning and in the notice for resignation he had not given any reason except to state that he sought voluntary retirement. We see nothing wrong in this. In the modern age we should not put embargo upon people's choice or freedom If, however, the administration had made arrangements acting on his resignation or letter of retirement to make other employee available for his job, that would be another matter but the appellant's offer to retire and withdrawal of the same happened in so quick succession that it cannot be said that any administrative set up or arrangement was affected. The administration has now taken a long time by its own attitude to communicate the matter. For this purpose the respondent is to blame and not the appellant." The afore-mentioned view was subsequently followed by the apex court in J. N. Srivastava v, Union of India and another (1998) 9 SCC 559 . The apex court reversed the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal refusing relief to the employee therein and held as follows: "It is now well settled that even if the voluntary retirement notice 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 locus poenitentiae to withdraw the proposal for voluntary retirement. The said view has been taken by a Bench of this court in the case of Balram Gupta v. Union of India. In view of the aforesaid decision of this court it cannot be said that the appellant had no locus standi to withdraw bis proposal for voluntary retirement before 31st March 1990. The said view has been taken by a Bench of this court in the case of Balram Gupta v. Union of India. In view of the aforesaid decision of this court it cannot be said that the appellant had no locus standi to withdraw bis proposal for voluntary retirement before 31st March 1990. It is to be noted that once the request for cancellation of voluntary retirement was rejected by the authority concerned on 26th December 1989 and when the retirement came into effect on 31st January 1990 the appellent had no choice but to give up the charge of the post to avoid unnecessary complications. He however approached the Tribunal with the main grievance centering round the rejection of his request for withdrawal of the voluntary retirement proposal. The Tribunal therefore following the decision of this court ought to have granted him the relief. We accordingly, allow these appeals and set aside the orders of the Tribunal as well as the order of the authorities, dated 26th December 1989 and directed the respondents to treat the appellant to have validly withdrawn his proposal for voluntary retirement with effect from 31st January 1990. The net result of this order is that the appellant will have to be treated to be in service till the date of superannuation which is said to be somewhere in 1994 when he completed 58 years of age. The respondent authorites will have to make good to the appellant all monetary benefits by treating him to have continuously worked till the date of his actual superannuation in 1994." We are of the view that the aforementioned principles will squarely apply to the facts of this case as well. 13. The apex court in Power Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia (1997) 4 SCC 280 while dealing with withdrawal of voluntary retirement held that the resignation inspite of its acceptance, can be withdrawn before the effective date. 13. The apex court in Power Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia (1997) 4 SCC 280 while dealing with withdrawal of voluntary retirement held that the resignation inspite of its acceptance, can be withdrawn before the effective date. The afore-mentioned decision was later followed by the apex court in Shambu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India and another (2000) 5 SCC 621 , wherein it was held as follows: "From the facts stated above, it would be seen that though the option of voluntary retirement exercised by the appellant by his letter, dated 18th October 1995 was accepted by the respondent Management by their letter, dated 30th July 1997, the appellant was not relieved from service and he was allowed to continue in service till 26th September 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 7th August 1997. The question which therefore arises in this appeal is whether it is open to a person having exercised option of voluntary retirement to withdrawal the said offer after its acceptance but before it is made effective. The question is squarely answered by three decisions, namely Balram Gupta v. Union of India, J. N. Srivastava v. Union of India and Power Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia in which it was held that the resignation, inspite of its acceptance, can be withdrawn before the 'effective date'." In the matter of resignation from service the apex the court in Union of India v, Gopal Chandra Misra AIR 1978 S.C. 694 held as follows: "The general principle regarding resignation is that in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a '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. This general rule is equally applicable to Government Servants and constitutional functionaries. This general rule is equally applicable to Government Servants and constitutional functionaries. In the case of a Government Servant/or functionary who cannot, under the conditions of his service/or office, normally the tender of resignation becomes effective and his service/or office tenure terminated, when it is accepted by the competent authority." Petitioner in this case had given his letter of voluntary retirement as early as on 25th February 2000 expressing her desire to retire voluntarily with effect from 1st August 2000. When she rejoined duty after the expiry of the leave on 25th March 2000 she found that her pension papers had not been processed and other formalities were not completed. In such circumstances the petitioner thought it just and proper to continue in service till the date of normal superannuation. 14. We also notice petitioner had submitted letter of her withdrawal of voluntary retirement within the time and the same was not accepted by the first respondent even though it was sent by registered acknowledgment due. First respondent had not given sanction for voluntary retirement as per R.56 (iv) of Part III K.S.R. Therefore the same can come into effect only on 1st; August 2000. Petitioner submitted letter of withdrawal of voluntary retirement prior to 1st August 2000. True, the same was not recommended by the first respondent for approval and no sanction was given by the Government for withdrawal in accordance with ruling 2. Going by the principle laid down by the apex court in the above mentioned decisions we are of the view the petitioner can withdraw the letter of voluntary retirement before it became effective i.e., on 1st August 2000. Petitioner therefore has the locus poenitentiae to withdraw the proposal for voluntary retirement. Therefore her request for withdrawal of voluntary retirement before the effective date is valid and liable to be accepted. 15. We may notice in this connection that the petitioner approached this court on 27th July 2000, that is before 1st August 2000 on which date her letter of voluntary retirement would come into effect. Notice was taken out by special messenger on 28th July 2000 and it was served on the first respondent before 1st August 2000. On 1st August 2000 a 51-A claimant was appointed in the vacancy by the first respondent. We cannot approve this conduct of the first respondent while the matter was seized before this court. Notice was taken out by special messenger on 28th July 2000 and it was served on the first respondent before 1st August 2000. On 1st August 2000 a 51-A claimant was appointed in the vacancy by the first respondent. We cannot approve this conduct of the first respondent while the matter was seized before this court. We notice arrangements were made to appoint R.51A claimant after the petitioner expressed her desire to withdraw the letter of voluntary retirement. 16. In view of the aforesaid circumstances we are inclined to allow this appeal and set aside Ext, P-5. Consequently we declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till 31st May, 2001 since she had withdrawn her letter of voluntary retirement from service before it has become effective. Accordingly there will be a direction to the respondents to re-admit the appellant to duty forthwith, at any rate within a period of two weeks from today. Consequently R.51-A claimant who is occupying the post of the appellant be ousted. We also make it clear that since the appellant had already withdrawn the request for voluntary retirement in accordance with law within time, she is also entitled to all the benefits as she was continuing in service. It is so declared. We therefore set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allow this appeal.