JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 19th March, 1 2002 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2526/2001. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the Bank promulgated a scheme dated 13.1.2001 for voluntary retirement. The petitioner filed an application on 23.2.2001 in the prescribed form and given his option for voluntary retirement. Before the same was accepted by the Bank, on 9.6.2001 he filed an application to withdraw his option for voluntary retirement. However, in spite of the withdrawal letter, his option for voluntary retirement was accepted on 28.6.2001 and he was relieved in pursuance to thereof. Aggrieved with the aforesaid action of the bank, the respondent Suresh Chand Jain, who was the then Assistant Manager with the appellant Bank, moved S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2526/2001 for quashing order dated 28.6,2001 and directing the bank to continue the petitioner in service. 3. By the. judgment under appeal the writ petition was allowed. The Court held that since acceptance of option was necessary condition for voluntary retirement to become operative under the scheme, before the employer could accept the application for exercise of option for voluntary s retirement as the incumbent withdrew his application, therefore, it cannot be acted upon by the bank. 4. The contention of the Bank has been that it was a matter of contract and once the employee has given his application for exercise of option for seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme, he had no right to withdraw such application under the Scheme. 5. The controversy has since been settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Bank of India and others v. O.P. Swarankar etc. and others, appeal AIR 2003 SC 858 . The Supreme Court was considering the appeal arising from the judgment of this court as well as from other High Courts in respect of the same scheme governing all nationalised banks and the same view has been approved as has been expressed by the learned Single Judge. The Supreme Court upholding the judgment of this Court said that employees opting for voluntary retirement could withdraw their offer before it was accepted by the Bank despite the contractual bar to withdrawal contained in the scheme. The Supreme Court upholding the judgment of this Court said that employees opting for voluntary retirement could withdraw their offer before it was accepted by the Bank despite the contractual bar to withdrawal contained in the scheme. The Court found after examining the scheme that the voluntary retirement scheme was not a proposal or an offer by the employer which could become a contract on furnishing option by the employee but was merely an invitation to make an offer by the employees. Once the application filed by the employee is held to be an offer; Section 5, in absence of any other independent binding contract or statute or statutory rules to the contrary would come into play. To complete the contract, the acceptance by the employer of the offer made by the employee to seek voluntary retirement was necessary. If before acceptance of offer, the offer is withdrawn by the person making offer, the employer cannot fall back on clause forbidding withdrawal of offer. The employment was held to have not come to an end. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed Judgment of Single Judge Upheld. *******