JUDGMENT 1. :- The appellant while serving as U.D.C. in the respondent Department submitted an application dated 01.06.1999 seeking voluntary retirement with the condition that the same be effective from 31st October, 1999. The second respondent accepted the application on 7th of August, 1999. It seems that the appellant was having second thoughts in the matter and on ⅚th September, 1999 he withdrew his application for voluntary retirement. The appellant by the same application prayed for revocation of the acceptance of his offer of voluntary retirement ostensibly on the ground that the same was accepted prior to 31st October, 1999, the date from which his voluntary retirement was to be effective and the appellant could withdraw this offer before that date. The application did not have the desired effect and the same was rejected vide order of the respondent dated 26th October, 1999. 2. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondent, the appellant filed the writ petition in this Court, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4441/1999. The learned Single judge by the impugned order allowed the petition and quashed the orders dated 7th October, 1999 and 26th October, 1999 passed by the respondents. The learned Single judge, however, held that the appellant shall not be entitled to back wages but he shall get notional benefits of the quashing of the acceptance of the application for voluntary retirement. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is entitled to receive full back wages since the acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement has been quashed by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submitted that since the appellant did not work during the intervening period, he was not entitled for back wages. He based his submission on the principle of 'no work no pay. 4. On hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the respondents were not right is not allowing the appellant to continue in service after he had withdrawn his resignation. The concerned authority overlooked the fact that prior to 31st October, 1999 the voluntary retirement of the appellant was not to become effective. Before the voluntary retirement of the appellant became effective he withdrew his request. 5. The representation of the appellant was wrongly rejected by the respondents on 26th October, 1999 and the appellant immediately filed a writ petition. The concerned authority overlooked the fact that prior to 31st October, 1999 the voluntary retirement of the appellant was not to become effective. Before the voluntary retirement of the appellant became effective he withdrew his request. 5. The representation of the appellant was wrongly rejected by the respondents on 26th October, 1999 and the appellant immediately filed a writ petition. The appellant was not at fault in not being able to work against his post as the respondent did not allow him to continue in service once his application for voluntary retirement was prematurely accepted. It is well settled that the application seeking voluntary retirement can be withdrawn before the date on which it is to become effective. The appellant having withdrawn his offer to retire voluntarily, before the effective date, he continued in service notwithstanding the precious acceptance of his request by the respondents. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be paid 50% of his back wages by the respondents. We order accordingly. Learned counsel for the appellant states that his client is satisfied with the aforesaid direction. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The respondents are directed to pay 50 per cent of the back wages to the appellant on account of quashing of acceptance of his application for voluntary retirementAppeal Allowed. *******