Judgment 1. On the matter being presented appearance has been put in on behalf of the sole respondent Vijay Das. The order impugned in the letters patent appeal is dated 1 Octomber 2002 on CWJC No.8305 of 2002 : Vijay Das V/s. The state Bank of India & Ors. [reported in 2003 (1) PLJR 44 ]. 2. The facts are not in issue. The State Bank of India had a scheme for voluntary retirement. The petitioner-respondent also applied seeking voluntary retirement. Before his request could be acted up he withdrew his request. The Bank made an issue out of this by denying him service in the Bank on the ground that the fact he applied for voluntary retirement was enough and the application could not be retracted. 3. The learned Judge has noticed the aspect that the petitioner-respondent submitted an application on 8 January, 2001 for voluntary retirement. On 12 March, 2001 he withdrew the offer. On 29 March 2001 the petitioner-respondent was issued necessary communication purporting to accept his offer of voiunatry retirement with effect from the close of business on 31 March, 2001. Between the time when the petitioner-respondent submitted his application for voluntary retirement and retracted it there was no decision of the Bank that the application of the petitioner-respondent had been acted upon. 4. The learned Judge has relied upon Supreme Court Cases to the effect that if the request for voluntary retirement had not been acted upon before the prayer of withdrawal then the application seeking voluntary retirement may be retracted. 5. This Court has no reason to differ with the observation of the learned Judge. 6. Dismissed.