JUDGMENT The short point involved in the petition is that petitioner by Annexure P-2 sought voluntary retirement from respondents. This application was filed on 22.6.2001, by which petitioner sought retirement after three months. Thereafter petitioner filed another application Annexure P-3 on 27 .8.2001, by which he sought withdrawal of aforesaid application. This application was filed at Pathariya. Before this application could reach to Damoh, where the authority has to decide the application Annexure P-2, on 28.8.2001 order was passed by which the petitioner was retired voluntarily. The contention of petitioner is that before acceptance of aforesaid retirement he has withdrawn it. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents submits that letter Annexure P-3, withdrawing voluntary retirement reached in the office of respondent No.3 on 30.8.2001 and before it the order was passed. Considering the aforesaid, the prayer of withdrawal was rightly rejected by respondents. The petitioner has right to withdraw the aforesaid retirement before the period which is given in the application. In the application Annexure P-2 petitioner has specifically stated that he is seeking retirement after three months from the date of application. Petitioner was at liberty to seek withdrawal of aforesaid application before completion of three months. The Apex Court in Union of India and another v. Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy [ (2001) 1 SCC 158 ] has considered the law and held in para 8 : "8. So far as the case in hand is concerned, nothing in the form of any statutory rules or any provision of any Act has been brought to our notice which could be said to impede or deny this right of the appellants. On the other hand, not only the acceptance of the request by the headquarters, the appropriate authority, was said to have been made only on 20.2.1986, a day after the respondent withdrew his request for premature retirement but even such acceptance in this case was to be effective from a future date namely 31.8.1986. Consequently, it could not be legitimately contended by the appellants that there was any cessation of the relationship of master and servant between the Department and the respondent at any rate before 31.8.1986. Consequently, it could not be legitimately contended by the appellants that there was any cessation of the relationship of master and servant between the Department and the respondent at any rate before 31.8.1986. While that be the position inevitably the respondent had a right and was entitled to withdraw or revoke his request earlier made before it ever really and effectively became effective." In the present case the letter withdrawing voluntary retirement was filed on 27.8.2001 and as per order Annexure P-1 the retirement was made effective from 30.9.2001. This order was passed on 28.8.2001. In the circumstances, before acceptance of retirement or before the effective date of retirement, petitioner has withdrawn his request for retirement, in the circumstances, respondents erred in rejecting the aforesaid application. Consequently, this petition is allowed. Order Annexure P-1 by which petitioner has been retired voluntarily w.e.f. 30.9.2001 and subsequent rejection of withdrawal of application Annexure P-2 by Annexure P-5 are quashed. The petitioner will continue in service. As the petitioner has not worked for the period 1st October 2001 up to date, he will be entitled for fifty per cent of back wages. For the purpose of other ancillary benefits, this period will be counted in the service by the respondents. No order as to costs. C.C. as per rules.