Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to withdraw his application of voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, revoke its acceptance and treat the petitioner to have continued in service without break. 2. Facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was a Deputy Manager (P & A) in the Bharat Wagon and Engineering Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) wholly owned by the Government of India. The Company came out with a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short the Scheme) giving opportunity to the employees of the Company to opt for the voluntary retirenent and accordingly the petitioner in order to augument sufficient fund for education of his children gave option for voluntry retirement on 18.3.2002. It is the stand (the petitioner that as there was delay in acceptance of the option, his financial, Heeds were met from his personal re(sources and help from close relatives and friends, he filed application dated 15.11.2002 (Annexure-3) withdrawing the option of voluntary retirement. It is the assertion of the petitioner that although he sought withdrawal of his option on 15.11.2002 but on 18.11.2002 he received letter dated 15.11.2002 (Annexure-4A) communicating to him that his option for voluntary retirement has been accepted with effect from 15.11.2002. Petitioners assertion further is that he had no knowledge (hat his option has been accepted till he received the order on 18.11.2002 which would be evident from the fact that he attended the office on 16.11.2002 and the card authorizing entry in the Company was withdrawn only on 18.11.2002. 3. According to the petitioner he submitted representation on 22.11.2002 (Annexure-5) seeking to withdraw the option given for voluntary retirement but instead of acceding to his request by communication dated 16.1.2003 (Annexure-6) he was advised to hand over the charge which he ultimately did on 10.2.2003. According to him a cheque for a sum of Rs. 8,09,941.33 was sent to him through registered post and although he accepted the same and encashed the amount but that cannot be treated as waiver of his right. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.3 which it has been stated that the petitioners option was accepted on 15.11.2002 but he did not receive the letter deliberately on that day. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.3 which it has been stated that the petitioners option was accepted on 15.11.2002 but he did not receive the letter deliberately on that day. It been further stated that following two days were holidays, hence card authorizing petitioners entry in the office was withdrawn before the commencement of the office hour on 18.11.2002. It has also been stated that due to some urgent work the Managing Director of the Company had called few officers and staff on 16.11.2002 and taking advantage of the same, petitioner punched the card. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner handed over the charge of Public Relation Office and Rajbhasha on 15.11.2002 but deliberately avoided to hand over the entire charge. 5. In reply to the counter affidavit petitioner has stated that the decision to accept the voluntary retirement of the petitioner was approved on 16.11.2002 and hence the plea of the respondent that it was accepted on 15.11.2002 is erroneous on fact. 6. From the pleadings of the parties the facts which emerge are that the petitioner opted for retirement under the Scheme and by communication dated 15.11.2002 petitioner was informed about its acceptance. The minute of the meeting dated 7.11.2002 in regard to the employees seeking option for retirement under the Scheme including the petitioner was approved by the Managing Director on 16.11.2002. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner filed application seeking withdrawal of the option on 15.11.2002 but even thereafter accepted and encashed the cheque of the amount which he was entitled on account of acceptance of the option. 7. Mr. Roy Shivajee Nath, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the person competent to accept the option is the Managing Director of the Company and he having accepted the petitioners option on 16.11.2002, hence the acceptance of the option on 15.11.2002 and its communication pn the said date is absolutely illegal. Once it is ignored the petitioners application seeking withdrawal of the option dated 15.11.2002 is fit to be accepted, contends Mr. Nath. Mr. Udayan Choudhary, however, appearing on behalf of the answering respondents submits that the Managing Director of the Company was in dual charge, stationed at Kolkatta and used to come to Patna generally twice in a month. Once it is ignored the petitioners application seeking withdrawal of the option dated 15.11.2002 is fit to be accepted, contends Mr. Nath. Mr. Udayan Choudhary, however, appearing on behalf of the answering respondents submits that the Managing Director of the Company was in dual charge, stationed at Kolkatta and used to come to Patna generally twice in a month. As such he gave sanction of the acceptance of the option of the petitoner telephonically on 15.11.2002 itself. Mr. Choudhary highlights that by the said decision not only the option of the petitioner has been accepted but altogether options of 58 persons have been accepted. 8. Having considered the rival contention, I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Nath. The stand of the answering respondents that the Managing Director was holding dual charge and had telephonically approved the decision of the acceptance of the option on 15.11.2002 have not been denied. It seems that after the approval by the Managing Director letter dated 15.11.2002 communicating the acceptance was issued. It is not only in the case of the petitioner but option of voluntary retirement of the employees numbering 57 has been accepted on that date. 9. Mr. Nath submits that the petitioner having withdrawn his option before its acceptance, the respondents have no option but to accept the said prayer. He points out that the order accepting the option shall be effective from the date the communication is made and the petitioner having received the communication on 18.11.2002 and before that he having withdrawn the option, the respondents erred in accepting the same. In support of the submission reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Lai Vrs. Union of India & Ors. [ 2003 (1) Supreme 961 ] in which in paragraph 27 it has been held as follows : "We have considered the submissions of both the parties. As has been set out, in Shambhu Muraris case and Bank of Indias case, an employee can withdraw his application fa Voluntary retirement before the effective date. The effective date would necessarily be the date on which the retirement takes etfect. The request, which Respondent No.3 had made by his letter dated 5th May, 1993, was to be allowed to retire voluntarily with immediate effect. He had also deposited Rs. 30,870/- in lieu of three months notice. The effective date would necessarily be the date on which the retirement takes etfect. The request, which Respondent No.3 had made by his letter dated 5th May, 1993, was to be allowed to retire voluntarily with immediate effect. He had also deposited Rs. 30,870/- in lieu of three months notice. Thus so far as Respondent No.3 was concerned the effective date was 5th May, 1993. of course Rule 16(2A) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules, 1958 provides that a notice of retirement had ot be accepted by the Government of india. in this case, the Government of india accepted the request on 2nd March, 1995 and permitted Respondent No.3 to retire with effect from May, 1993. The moment Government of India accepted notice the retirement became effective. The relationship of master and servant came to an end." 10. Mr. Nath submits that relationship the employees and employer continued 10.2.2003 the day on which he handed ver the charge and the offer of voluntary etirement having been withdrawn on 15.11.2002, respondents have no option than to accede to his prayer. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Murari Sinha Vrs. Project and Development India Ltd. ( AIR 2002 SC 1341 ) and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 19 of the judgment, which reads as follows : "19. We, therefore, hold that the respondent could not have refused to accept the letter of the appellant as it was sent before the jural relationship of employee and employer came to an end. Consequently, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside, which we hereby do. The appellant shall, be entitled to rejoin his duty and he shall be paid all his salaries and other benefits during the period he was out from the service. The learned counsel for the respondent has stated that by this time the appellant might have retired from service on ataining the age of superannuation. If that be so, he shall be paid full salary and allowances for the entire period he was out of service till the date of his retirement and thereafter, he shall be entitled to get all retiral benefits counting the above period as if he was in service." 11. Mr. If that be so, he shall be paid full salary and allowances for the entire period he was out of service till the date of his retirement and thereafter, he shall be entitled to get all retiral benefits counting the above period as if he was in service." 11. Mr. Choudhary submits that the letter dated 15.11.2002 accepting the voluntary retirement with effect from the said date was given to the petitioner but he avoided to receive the same. He points out that after the petitioner knew about the acceptance of his option he had chosen to withdraw the same. He points out that once the offer of the petitioner was accepted and made effective, respondents did not err by not accepting the request of withdrawal of option by the petitioner. In support of his resubmission he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of North Zone Cultural Centre and another Vrs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar [ (2003) 5 SCC 455 ] and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 23 of the judgment, which reads as follows : "As noticed above, in the present case the resignation is dated 18.11.1988 and the same as found by us is accepted on 18.11.1988 itself. The communication was on 1.12.1988 about 13 days thereafter which delay, in our opinion, is not an undue delay so as to make us draw an inference that there has been no acceptance of the resignation. Even the fact that in the meantime the respondent either attended duty or signed the attendance register will be of no assistance to claim his resignation had not taken effect. Even otherwise the appellants have urged that because there was no responsible officer in the headquarters from 18.11.1988 after the spondents resignation was accepted till 1.2.1988 and the respondent took advantage of the same and marked his attendance and such attendance cannot be treated as lawful attendance in view of the acceptance of his resignation on 18.11.1988. We agree with this contention of the appellant." 12. I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Nath. In the present case the decision to accept the voluntary retirement of the petitioner was taken on 15.11.2002 itself and the same was communicated to the petitioner. In fact on the said date he handed over the charge partly. We agree with this contention of the appellant." 12. I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Nath. In the present case the decision to accept the voluntary retirement of the petitioner was taken on 15.11.2002 itself and the same was communicated to the petitioner. In fact on the said date he handed over the charge partly. Petitioner did not work thereafter and the card which authorized his entry in the Company was withdrawn on 18.11.2002. Two days in between being holidays petitioners entry in the Company is of no consequence. Thus the effective date of acceptance of petitioners voluntary retirement is 15.11.2002 and hence the prayer made for its withdrawal was not fit to be accepted. It is worth mentioning here that on the said date not only the voluntary retirement of the petitioner was accepted but the offers of large number of employees numbering 57 were accepted. Hence it cannot be suggested that the respondents accepted the voluntary retirement with effect from 15.11.2002 in order to defeat the case of the petitioner. 13. Now referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Lal (supra) same, in my opinion, instead of supporting the case of the petitioner, goes against him. In the said case it has been observed as follows : "30. In view of the above it is held that the High Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the relationship of master and servant had not been terminated. As has been set out hereinabove, the relationship of master and servant had been terminated before Respondent No.3 sought to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement on 18th April, 1995. Once relationship of master and servant had been served and/or terminated, by this back door method, Respondent No.3 could not get back to service. The Order of the Government of India dated 14th August, 1997 cannot be sustained and was correctly quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In this view of the matter the impugned judgment requires to be and is hereby set aside. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 3rd February, 1998 is restored." 14. As I have held earlier that the petitioners voluntary retirement was made effective with effect from 15.11.2002 and on that date the relationship of master and servant had been terminated. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 3rd February, 1998 is restored." 14. As I have held earlier that the petitioners voluntary retirement was made effective with effect from 15.11.2002 and on that date the relationship of master and servant had been terminated. It seems that the petitioner knew about the same and after handing over the charge in part, filed application seeking its withdrawal. In my opinion, an employee can withdraw his application for voluntary retirement before the effective date but it cannot be withdrawn or allowed to be withdrawn after the effective date. 15. In the case of Shambhu Murari Sinha (supra) the employee had sent the letter of withdrawal before the date of his actual retirement and in that context it was held that the employee was entitled to withdraw the same. Here in the present case effective date is 15.11.2002. In my opinion, the fact that the petitioner avoided to receive the letter or for that matter avoided to hand over the charge will not shift the effective date of voluntary retirement. Thuus in my opinion the withdrawal of the offer of the voluntary retirement after the effective date was not rightly accepted. The view which I have taken finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of North Zone Cultural Centre (supra). 16. Mr. Udayan Choudhary submits that the writ application deserves to be dismissed solely on the ground that peti tioner had chosen to file the writ application after accepting the benefits of the scheme. He points out that the petitioner sought voluntary retirement on 18.3.2002 which was accepted with effect from 15.11.2002 by communication of the said date itself and thereafter the petitioner submitted the application withdrawing the same. Petitioner handed over in part the charge on the said date itself but later on he failed to hand over the full charge. Ultimately he did so on 10.2.2003. Not only this other monetary benefits flowing from the acceptance of the scheme were accepted and the cheque concerning that amount deposited in the Bank. It is only thereafter he had chosen to challenge the action of the respondents in accepting the voluntary retirement and declining to accede to the petitioners prayer for its withdrawal points out Mr. Choudhary. Mr. Nath, however, submits that mere acceptance of the monetary benefits shall not disentitle the petitioner to challenge the impugned action. It is only thereafter he had chosen to challenge the action of the respondents in accepting the voluntary retirement and declining to accede to the petitioners prayer for its withdrawal points out Mr. Choudhary. Mr. Nath, however, submits that mere acceptance of the monetary benefits shall not disentitle the petitioner to challenge the impugned action. From the fact stated above it is evident that the petitioner handed over the charge, accepted the benefits and only thereafter he had chosen to file this writ application on 7.7.2003. The Supreme Court had the occasion to consider this aspect of the matter in the case of Bank of India Vrs. O.P. Swaranakar ( AIR 2003 SC 858 ) and in the said case it has been held in paragraphs 114 and 115 as follows : "114. However, it is accepted that a group of employees accepted the ex gratia payment. Those who accepted the ex gratia payment or any other benefit under the scheme, in our considered opinion, could not have resiled therefrom." "115. The scheme is contractual in nature. The contractual right derived by the concerned employees, therefore, could be waived. The employees concerned having accepted a part of the benefit could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate nor can they be permitted to resile from their earlier stand." 17. In that view of the matter, Mr. Choudhary is right when he contends that petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the decision in the present writ application. 18. To put the record straight Mr. Nath had relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Krishnamber Jha Vrs. Union of India and others [ 2000 (4) PLJR 100 ] to contend that acceptance of monetary benefit under the scheme shall not prevent the right of an employee to challenge the order denying the permission to withdraw the offer. My particular attention has been drawn to paragraph 11 of the judgment, which reads as follows : "11. This Court is in respectful agreement with the observation made by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, and it is difficult for this Court to accept the plea raised by the respondent. My particular attention has been drawn to paragraph 11 of the judgment, which reads as follows : "11. This Court is in respectful agreement with the observation made by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, and it is difficult for this Court to accept the plea raised by the respondent. This Court is ot the opinion that in the instant case by accepting the amount of voluntary retirement which was offered to him after filing of this writ petition the petitioner has not given-up his right to challenge the impugned order. In fact, during the pendency of this writ petition a learned Judge of this Court while admitting the same gave further liberty to the petitioner to receive the balance amount and made it clear that filing of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner to receive the balance amount of provident fund and any other amount." 19. The case relied on by Mr. Nath is clearly distinguishable. In the said case monetary benefits were not accepted prior to filing of the writ petition. In fact while admitting the writ application the Court gave liberty to the employees to receive the balance amount. In such a situation the employees right to challenge the action was upheld. Here in the present case it is not so. 20. In the result, I do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed accordingly with cost to be paid by the petitioner to respondent no.1 which I assess to be Rs. 2,200/-.