( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions involve the same issue and arise under similar facts and circumstances. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in WP. No. 13726 of 2001 is referred to as the 1st petitioner and the petitioner in WP. No. 13816 of 2001 is referred to as the 2nd petitioner. The respondents are common in both the writ petitions. ( 2 ) THE 1st petitioner joined in the services of the respondents on 9-3-1968 as Lineman in the Electrical Section of the respondents-Port Trust. By 2001, he has put in 33 years of service and was working as a Crane Operator in Floating Craft Section. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as Wire Splicer on 22-12-1971 in the respondents-Port Trust. Thereafter, he has been promoted to the post of Fitter Grade I. By 2001, he has put in 29 years of service. ( 3 ) VISAKHAPATNAM Port Trust functions under the control of Ministry of Surface Transport, Department of Shipping, Government of India. The Ministry of Surface Transport issued Circular dated 30-1-2001 requesting all the Ports in the country to keep the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) open for all the employees till 30-6-2001 and close it thereafter. Ban was also imposed on fresh recruitments. Necessary follow up action was taken by the respondents. ( 4 ) THE petitioners have responded to the Scheme. Both of them have submitted their applications dated 14-3-2001 opting to avail the benefit of the VRS. However, citing certain personal reasons, they have chosen to withdraw their applications seeking voluntary retirement. The petitioners contend that they have not been communicated any orders by the respondents accepting their for voluntary retirement. But, despite the same, the respondents were not allowing them to work in the Organisation. While the 1st petitioner claims to have worked till 6-6-2001, the 2nd petitioner states that he worked till 8-6-2001. Both of them claim the relief in the form of a Mandamus declaring that they are entitled to withdraw their applications for voluntary retirement and direct the respondents to continue them in service with all consequential benefits. They relied upon the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court. ( 5 ) THE respondents filed counter affidavits in both the writ petitions. They have referred to the service particulars of the petitioners. They relied upon the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court. ( 5 ) THE respondents filed counter affidavits in both the writ petitions. They have referred to the service particulars of the petitioners. They said that acting on the Circular issued by the Ministry of Surface Transport, they have introduced the VRS. It is stated that both the petitioners had submitted their applications dated 14-3-2001 seeking voluntary retirement under the VRS. It is further stated that the applications of the petitioners were considered by the competent authority on 5-6-2001. It is their case that both the petitioners were relieved on 5-6-2001 itself. It is finally stated that once the application for voluntary retirement has been accepted, the question of permitting the petitioners to withdraw the same does not arise. ( 6 ) SRI P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners submitted their applications seeking voluntary retirement under the VRS on 14-3-2001, but have withdrawn the same. He submits that even till today, the petitioners were not communicated the orders of acceptance of their applications for voluntary retirement and in view of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court, it was open to the petitioners to withdraw their requests at any point of time before the acceptance of their requests was communicated to them. He also submits that the very fact that the petitioners have worked subsequent to 5-6-2001 demonstrates that the contention of the respondents that the same was communicated on 5-6-2001 itself is not correct. ( 7 ) SRI K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the Chairman of the Port Trust accorded approval for the retirement of the petitioners and several others on 5-6-2001 and that decision was communicated to the petitioners on the same day. According to him, they were relieved on 5-6-2001 itself and that it was only as an after thought that the petitioners have come forward with applications dated 7-6-2001 and 8-6-2001 respectively withdrawing their applications for voluntary retirement. ( 8 ) BEFORE examining the question as to whether there was a valid acceptance by the respondents or, as the case may be, withdrawal by the petitioners, of the applications for voluntary retirement dated 14-3-2001, it is relevant to take note of the legal position on the subject. ( 8 ) BEFORE examining the question as to whether there was a valid acceptance by the respondents or, as the case may be, withdrawal by the petitioners, of the applications for voluntary retirement dated 14-3-2001, it is relevant to take note of the legal position on the subject. The submission of the applications for voluntary retirement by the employees and acceptance of the same by the employers, have certain important ingredients of Law of Contract with specific reference to offer and acceptance. As in the case of contracts, a valid acceptance of application for voluntary retirement can be said to have taken place with the communication of the acceptance of the offer. Through a catena of decisions, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the effective date in relation to acceptance of the offer of voluntary retirement or resignation is the date on which the employee is relieved of the duties after acceptance and till such date, the jural relationship of the employer and employee does not come to an end. It was further held that the employee is entitled to resile from the offer i. e. , to withdraw his application before he is actually relieved from the duties. This proposition of law was laid down and uniformly followed in BALRAM GUPTA vs. UNION OF INDIA1, J. N. SRIVASTAVA vs. UNION OF INDIA 2, POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHATIA3 and was summed up in SHAMBHU MURARI SINHA vs. PROJECT AND DEVELOPMENT INDIA4. It is apt to refer to a passage in POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. (3 supra):"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 condition ought to have been complied with. Before the condition 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 not right in holding that the respondent has acquired a vested right and, therefore, the appellant has no right to withdraw the scheme subsequently. 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 not right in holding that the respondent has acquired a vested right and, therefore, the appellant has no right to withdraw the scheme subsequently. " ( 9 ) NOW the cases of the petitioners have to be examined keeping in view this position of law. The learned counsel for the petitioners has categorically submitted that even till the date of filing of the writ petitions, the petitioners were not served with the orders accepting their request for voluntary retirement. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions, they have categorically stated that no proceedings were served on them accepting the applications for voluntary retirement. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the competent authority has accepted the applications of the petitioners on 5-6-2001 and that the petitioners were relieved on the same day. It is not stated as to when the orders accepting their request were communicated to the petitioners. ( 10 ) WHAT has occurred on 5-6-2001 is that the Chairman has accorded approval for retirement of certain employees including the petitioners under VRS. This order was not intended to be communicated to the petitioners, nor was in fact so communicated. Further, the acceptance was to take effect on compliance with certain conditions, which are stipulated in that order itself. As regards communication of the order and the follow up action to be taken, the order directs as under:"he (Chief Mechanical Engineer) is requested to intimate the employees concerned subject to obtaining an undertaking not to claim three months notice pay afresh, and to take necessary further action to abolish the said posts. ""as regards payment of ex-gratia, the order states as under: the payment of ex-gratia benefits under the VRS should be made only after the said posts are abolished. "such follow up action was taken only on the next day in respect of the 2nd petitioner, through order dated 6-6-2001 of the Chief Mechanical Engineer, which reads as under:"in terms of the approval of the Chairman communicated vide Deputy Chairman Order cited, the retirement of Sri N. P. Appa Rao, Fitter Grade I (Adhoc), Emp. "such follow up action was taken only on the next day in respect of the 2nd petitioner, through order dated 6-6-2001 of the Chief Mechanical Engineer, which reads as under:"in terms of the approval of the Chairman communicated vide Deputy Chairman Order cited, the retirement of Sri N. P. Appa Rao, Fitter Grade I (Adhoc), Emp. No085479 of E/m Section, Mechanical Department, is accepted under VRS w. e. f. 5-6-2001 A. N. duly abolishing the post of Fitter Gr. III, Elec. Maint. Section. " ( 11 ) EVEN this letter is not addressed to the 2nd petitioner nor a copy of it is marked to him. It is rather an internal communication. It is only the Office Order dated 28-6-2001 that was communicated to the petitioners. The order reads as under:"the following employees retired from service under Voluntary Retirement Scheme w. e. f. 5-6-2001, introduced in V. P. T. Chairman s Orders communicated vide Dy. Chairman s order No. ADMN/vrs/cme/2001, daed 5-6-2001 copy to: Retired Employees concerned. They may opt to avail life time medical facilities in G. J. H. for themselves and their wives by remitting an amount of Rs. 600/- for Class III and Rs. 400/- for Class IV employees in R. E. Section and produce the cash receipt for getting medical identity books. Further, they are advised to surrender photopass and old medical identity books of self and their family members immediately in their section concerned. Any lapse in this regard will be taken as deemed fit. " ( 12 ) THE sequence of the order referred to above indicate that the acceptance of the applications of the petitioners by the Chairman has passed through several steps, such as, abolition of the posts held by the petitioners, communication of the order dated 28-6-2001, etc. It needs to be observed that an important step as directed by the Chairman i. e. , obtaining Undertaking not to claim three months notice pay afresh remained unaccomplished. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have communicated the decision of acceptance of the applications of the petitioners on 5-6-2001 itself. On the other hand, the Office Order that was meant to be communicated to the petitioners was the one dated 28-6-2001 and it is not even stated as to whether even this order was communicated at all. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have communicated the decision of acceptance of the applications of the petitioners on 5-6-2001 itself. On the other hand, the Office Order that was meant to be communicated to the petitioners was the one dated 28-6-2001 and it is not even stated as to whether even this order was communicated at all. All the proceedings anterior to the order dated 28-6-2001 constituted only internal correspondence among the various Officers and authorities of the Port Trust. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioners were communicated the orders of acceptance of applications for voluntary retirement cannot be sustained. Now remains the question as to when the petitioners were relieved from duty. ( 13 ) IT is the specific case of the petitioners that they continued to work till 6-6-2001 and 8-6-2001 respectively. The respondents, however, contended that the petitioners were relieved on 5-6-2001 itself. The respondents, however, contend that the petitioners were relieved from duty on 5-6-2001 itself. To ascertain as to whether the petitioners have attended to the duties up to the dates pleaded by them, the respondents were directed to submit the concerned Attendance Registers. ( 14 ) IN the Attendance Register relating to the Section where the 1st petitioner worked, it is evident that he marked his attendance on 6-6-2001. In his concerned register, the 2nd petitioner signed up to 8-6-2001. The attendance marked on 6-6-2001 of the 1st petitioner was rounded off and an endorsement was written to the following effect: vr w. e. f. 5-6-2001 as per phone message from CMEs office. Relieved OO No. FC/qcme/vrs/a/2001 dated 7-6-2001. " ( 15 ) THE respondents asserted that this endorsement was made by the Time Keeper on 5-6-2001 itself. With a view to ascertain the veracity of the same, the Time Keeper was directed to file his affidavit. In his affidavit, he has chosen to say so many things, except the relevant one. He has stated that he was informed the orders of acceptance of voluntary retirement of various employees on 5-6-2001 itself. He further stated that by the time he came to the office, the employees attended for shifts and on noticing that they attended to work even after acceptance of the voluntary retirement, he rounded off the same and asked the employees not to attend the duties. He further stated that by the time he came to the office, the employees attended for shifts and on noticing that they attended to work even after acceptance of the voluntary retirement, he rounded off the same and asked the employees not to attend the duties. The statement of the Time Keeper and the contention of the respondents in this regard is false. Such a conclusion becomes inevitable in view of the following facts: ( 16 ) ONE Mr. B. Kamalakar Rao, was one of the employees, whose application for voluntary retirement under the VRS was accepted along with that of the petitioners. In the Attendance Register, against his name, absence was marked up to 6-6-2001. One can understand the contention of the respondents that some employees marked their attendance in the Register even after acceptance. Marking of absence is done by the Time Keeper. It is he who has marked absent for Mr. Kamalakar Rao, both on 5th and 6th June 2001. However, he rounded off the mark a of 6-6-2001 and made endorsement VR w. e. f. 5-6-2001 as per phone message. ( 17 ) IT also needs to be observed that against the names of the petitioners, there are two types of endorsements. In the case of the 1st petitioner, an endorsement was made that he was relieved under Office Order dated 7-6-2001. Another endorsement is vr w. e. f. 5-6-2001 as per phone message These two are in different inks. The later endorsement appears to have been made only to over come the claim of the petitioner, which can be even subsequent to the writ petition also. Similarly, against the name of the 2nd petitioner, the following endorsement is made: employee relieved duly served the retirement order. " another endorsement with a different ink is to the following effect: retirement from service under VRS w. e. f. 5-6-01 AN vide o/o No. QCME/mop/a/vrs/2001 dated 5-5-2001" when the Heads of the concerned Sections themselves did not take the necessary steps as contemplated by the orders of the Chairman, such as, obtaining undertaking, abolition of the posts, etc. , it is just unimaginable as to on what basis the Time Keeper has made the endorsements. , it is just unimaginable as to on what basis the Time Keeper has made the endorsements. ( 18 ) UNDER these circumstances, the Court is compelled to take the view that the endorsements in the Attendance Registers made by the Time Keeper do not represent the correct facts and an effort was made to mislead the Court. The net result is that the 1st petitioner worked till 6-6-2001 and the 2nd petitioner worked till 8-6-2001. To know what is "effective date", it is important to ascertain as to when the concerned employee has been relieved of the duties. Such relieving should be through official proceedings. Physical prevention of the employees from attending to the duties does not constitute relieving. The services of the petitioners, who worked in the Organisation for more than two decades, cannot come to an end on the basis of the so-called phone message to the Time Keeper. From the effective date onwards, the relationship of the employer and the employee between the petitioners and the respondents comes to an end. There are certain steps to be taken by the respondents and some steps by the petitioners. The order dated 5-6-2001 of the Chairman and the order dated 28-6-2001 of the Chief Mechanical Engineer spell some of them. It is only on compliance with these steps that there can be an effective relieving. The respondents are not in a position to place even a scrap of paper that is said to have been served on the petitioners. Therefore, it is clear that the respondents have failed to establish that the petitioners were relieved from the duties on 5-6-2001. It is not even pleaded that the petitioners have been relieved on any other date. ( 19 ) IT is not in dispute that the 1st petitioner has submitted a representation on 6/8-6-2001 and that the 2nd respondent has submitted representation on 7-6-2001, withdrawing their applications for VRS. The discussion undertaken above indicates that by the time the petitioners have submitted their applications withdrawing their requests for VRS, the respondents did not relieve the petitioners nor did they communicate the orders of acceptance of the applications for VRS. ( 20 ) THEREFORE, following the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court, it has to be concluded that the petitioners were entitled to continue in service. ( 20 ) THEREFORE, following the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court, it has to be concluded that the petitioners were entitled to continue in service. The petitioners are entitled to a declaration and it is declared that the applications dated 14-3-2001 submitted by them seeking voluntary retirement stood withdrawn and that they shall be entitled to continue in service. It is also declared that the orders dated 5-6-2001 passed by the Chairman and the other consequential steps do not have the effect of putting an end to the services of the petitioners in the respondents Organisation. So far as the entitlement of the petitioners for wages from 7-6-2001 (1st petitioner) and 9-6-2001 (2nd petitioner) till the date of joining into the duty is concerned, the respondents shall be liable to pay the same subject to their establishing that the petitioners were gainfully employed elsewhere. If the petitioners were paid any amounts under the VRS, they shall refund the same within two months from the date of assuming duties. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to resume duties forthwith. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No costs.