JUDGMENT 1. - The first writ petition No. 2228/98 has been filed for claiming the relief that the petitioner's period on deputation should be treated as an integral part of his continuous service in the department with the benefits he was entitled during that period and the period of deputation should be reckoned for the qualifying service as required under the Rules. The second writ petition No. 8/99 has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.7.1998 by which the resignation of the petitioner has been accepted. 2. As both the petitions raise the same dispute, they are disposed of by the common judgment and order. 3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that the petitioner, while in service with the respondents, had proceeded on deputation to Kuwait after getting the sanction from the competent authority for a period of 5 years and remained there for 5 years from 29.1.1992 to 25.6.1997. After completing the deputation period, he joined the parent department and under the family circumstances, he submitted the application for voluntary retirement on 26.12.1997 (Annex. 10 to the writ petition No. 2228/98) stating that in case it is not permissible in law to accept his voluntary retirement, the said application may be considered as his resignation. Before any order could be passed on the said application, the petitioner moved another application dated 27.6.1998 (Annex. 13 to the writ petition No. 2228/98) that he withdraws his resignation, and the said application may be treated only an application for voluntary retirement. However, the respondents passed by the impugned order dated 18.7.1998 (Annex. 14 to the writ petition No. 8/99) accepting the resignation of the petitioner. Hence these petitions. 4. Shri M.S. Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had proceeded on deputation after complying with the requirement of law and taking sanction from the competent authority and, therefore, under no circumstance he can be deprived of any benefit of the said period and his service on deputation may be at the most be treated as on transfer with the permission of the respondents and that the said period cannot be excluded while reckoning his service for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service. 5. 5. Once the petitioner had filed the application for voluntary retirement and in case not permissible in law then to treat the same as resignation and before any order could be passed on that application he withdrew the said application by filing a review application and specifically submitted that it was a case of voluntary retirement and not of the resignation, the respondents were not competent to pass an order accepting it as a resignation. Therefore, the said order is to be read as that of voluntary retirement in stead of resignation as resignation would deprive the benefits of retrial benefits under the provisions of Rule 208 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. 6. Shri Arun Bhansali, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner had not actually worked with the respondents and his period of deputation cannot be reckoned for the purpose of qualifying service and his submission is based on a circular dated 19.2.1994 which specifically provides that in case as employee proceeds on foreign assignment, he must serve the same period in Rajasthan for which he served abroad for the purpose of qualifying service. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal position that if a person tenders his resignation, he has right to withdraw it prior to the date of acceptance. 8. The law on the issue is crystal clear and the legal position which emerges out from the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that an employee has a right to withdraw his resignation letter before its acceptance and in case the resignation is tendered with a stipulation to be effective from a future date, he can withdraw it even after its acceptance but prior to the date on which the resignation was to be made effective. (Vide Raj Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1969 SC 180 ; P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology, AIR 1981 SC 789 ; Balram Gupta v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2354 ; Punjab National Bank v. P.K. Mittal, 1989 (Supp.) 2 175 ; Moti Ram v. Paramdeo & Anr., AIR 1993 SC 1662 ; the Power Financial Corporation Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia, (1997) 4 SCC 280 ; Nand Keshav Irasand v. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Societies Ltd. & Anr. (1998) 5 SCC 461 ; J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1571 ; and Dr. Dinesh Purohit v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 (1) WLC (Rajasthan) 628) . 9. A similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project & Development India & Anr., (2000) 5 SCC 721 ; wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the resignation, inspite of its acceptance, can be withdrawn before the effective date. 10. In Union of India & Anr. v. Wg. Comm. T. Parthasarthy, JT 2000 (Supp) 2 SC 490 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even if the policy of the Government provides that once the resignation is submitted by the employee and he was fully aware of the fact that he cannot seek for cancellation of the application, such policy will be destructive of the right of the employee in law to withdraw his request for premature retirement before it ever becomes operative and effective and effected termination of his status and relation with department. The Court observed 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 on 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 becomes 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. Even that apart, the reasoning of the High Court that the case of the respondent will not be covered by the type or nature of the mischief sought to be curbed by the so-called policy decision also cannot be said to suffer any conformity in law, to warrant our interference." 11. In such a situation, if the employee tenders his resignation voluntarily or under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme floated by the employer, he can withdraw it subsequently prior to the date of acceptance or becoming effective. In such an eventuality, the employee can also withdraw his offer of voluntary resignation/retirement even on the face of clause/ conditions incorporated in the scheme etc. that once an offer of resignation/ retirement is made, it cannot be withdrawn unless such a condition is found to be reasonable or based on some rational. 12. Thus, in view of the above, there is no dispute that such an order accepting the application meant exclusively for a voluntary retirement could not have been accepted by the respondents treating it as an application for resignation. Thus, the impugned order dated 18.7.1998 is liable to be quashed. 13. So far as the second issue regarding taking into account the period of deputation while determining the qualifying service is concerned, there is no dispute that the petitioner had proceeded on deputation with prior sanction with clear stipulation that his period of deputation shall be counted while reckoning the qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits as is evident from the order dated 16.10.1992 (Annex. 1 to the writ petition No. 2228/98). 1 to the writ petition No. 2228/98). So far as the Government Circular dated 19.2.1984 is concerned, even if it has some force, it cannot take away the terms and conditions, on which the petitioner had proceeded on deputation, as it has been enforced subsequently and thus, the said circular is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. As per the said circular, the person going on deputation has to fill up a bond that he will serve the parent department for a period for which he has served abroad for the purpose of completing his qualifying service. In the instant case the petitioner has not filled any such bond nor he had ever been asked to fill such a bond after commencement of the said circular. Therefore, the said circular is not attracted. Even otherwise, this issue stands covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Madhavan and another v. Union of India and others, AIR 1987 SC 2291 wherein the similar plea has been accepted. 14. Thus, in view of the above, both these petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned order dated 18.7.1998 (Annex. 14 to the writ petition No. 8/99) is hereby quashed and the petitioner shall be treated to have retired voluntary w.e.f. 30.6.1998. The respondents are directed to give all consequential benefits considering him having completed the qualifying service and stood voluntary retired w.e.f. 30.6.1998. In case there are certain dues outstanding towards the petitioner, the respondents shall be entitled to adjust the same. The respondents may make the payment of arrears etc. within a period of four months from the date of filing the certified copy of this order.Writ Petition Allowed. *******