NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) BOTH the appeals are directed against the same Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 29th September 1999 in writ Petition No. 7118 of 1993. Hence, both the writ appeals were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common Judgment. ( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the Writ Petition, be noted at the first instance and they are as follows: The appellant in writ Appeal 8228 of 1999, Sri B. C. Shivanne Gowd joined the services of the Mandya National Paper Mills Limited, (hereinafter referred to as the Company for the sake of brevity) in the year 1979 as Labour welfare Officer. He was promoted to the post of Personnel Officer during 1985. Subsequently, he was further promoted as Assistant manager (Personnel and Administration) in the year 1988 and as deputy Manager (Personnel and Administration) in the month of november, 1989. ( 3 ) SRI Shivanne Gowd while serving as Deputy Manager (Personnel and Administration), on 31-12-1992 submitted an application to the acting Chief Executive of the company seeking permission to retire voluntarily from the services of the company under a scheme called Mandya National Paper Mills Limited, Employees Voluntary retirement Scheme for short, the VRS. Subsequently, Sri B. C. Shivanne Gowd submitted a letter dated 28-1-1993 withdrawing his application submitted on 31-12-1992 under the VRS. That letter reads as follows. 28-1-1993 the Acting Chief Executive, mnpm Ltd, D G M (Works) belagula dear Sir, sub: VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT vide letter dated 31. 12. 1992 I have submitted application for voluntary retirement. Now, I intend to withdraw the application. Therefore, my above application for Voluntary Retirement may please be kept in abeyance for some more time. Thanking you, yours faithfully, (B. C. S. Gowd) dy. Manager (Panda)ON 29. 1. 1993, the Deputy General Manager (Works) on behalf of the Chief Executive of the company wrote a letter dated 29. 1. 1993 to Sri Shivanne Gowd which reads as follows:mnpm;08;6466;93 Date 29. 1. 1993 sri B. C. S. Gowd dy. Manager (Panda) p and A Department sub: Acceptance of your application for voluntary retirement ref: Your application dated 31. 12. 1992 with reference to your application dated 31. 12. 1. 1993 to Sri Shivanne Gowd which reads as follows:mnpm;08;6466;93 Date 29. 1. 1993 sri B. C. S. Gowd dy. Manager (Panda) p and A Department sub: Acceptance of your application for voluntary retirement ref: Your application dated 31. 12. 1992 with reference to your application dated 31. 12. 1992 for voluntary retirement from the services of the company under the company s Voluntary Retirement Scheme, we wish to inform you that your application for the same has been accepted by the management and you have been relieved from the duties of the company on the afternoon of 29. 1. 1993. You are hereby advised to contact the accounts Department during the working hours for settlement of your final dues after getting clearance certificate from all the departments concerned. DY GEN. MANAGER (WORKS) for CHIEF EXECUTIVEThis was followed by another letter of Sri Shivanne Gowd dated 1. 2. 1993, reference to which, for the purpose of decision-making in these appeals is not necessary and, hence, we do not dilate on it. ( 4 ) SRI Shivanne Gowd being aggrieved by the action of the management terminating his services with effect from the afternoon of 29. 1. 1993 filed the Writ Petition No. 7118 of 1993 in this Court in the Writ Petition it was contended by the petitioner that since the management had received the withdrawal letter on 28. 1. 1993 itself, it ought not to have accepted the application submitted by the petitioner on 31. 12. 1992 under the VRS. ( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge on consideration of the VRS notified vide Circular No. MNPM. 08/8730 dated 4th November 1988 produced as Annexure -A thought that the Management in the light of the provisions of sub-clause (iv) of clause (c) of the VRS ought not to have accepted the application submitted by the petitioner on 31. 12. 1992. Having so opined, but, at the same time feeling that the situation was brought about by the writ petitioner himself by submitting an application under the VRS and subsequently withdrawing the same, allowed the Writ Petition in part only and quashed the impugned termination order and directed the management to reinstate the petitioner into service subject to the condition that the writ petitioner refunds all the monies received by him towards terminal benefits within two months from the date of the order. The Writ petitioner being aggrieved by the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to refund all the money received by him towards terminal benefits has preferred Writ Appeal No. 8228 of 1999, whereas, the Management being aggrieved by the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to it to reinstate the petitioner into service has preferred Writ Appeal No. . 7729 of 1999. ( 6 ) WE have heard Sri K. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the employee and Sri Z. N. Hansi, learned Counsel for the management. ( 7 ) SRI Subba Rao would maintain that it is well settled position in law that if an employee submits a resignation with effect from a future date or submits an application under a VRS to come into effect from a future date, it is open for such employee to withdraw his resignation or to withdraw application filed under the VRS, as the case may be before the resignation/application under the VRS is accepted and the employee is relieved from the service in terms of the relevant service Regulations/provisions of the VRS Sri Subba rao would point out that in the instant case admittedly on 28. 1. 1993 the appellant submitted his letter withdrawing his application dated 31. 12. 1992 submitted under the VRS. The Management having received that withdrawal letter, arbitrarily and in violation of the settled law, terminated the services of the appellant with effect from the afternoon of 29. 1. 1993. ( 8 ) SRI Hansi, learned Counsel for the Management, on the other hand, would draw our attention to the letter of the appellant dated 28. 1. 1993 and maintain that the said letter cannot be construed as the one under which the writ petitioner clearly expressed his intent to withdraw the application dated 31. 12. 1992. The learned management Counsel would submit that paragraphs 1 and 2 of the letter would clearly indicate that the writ petitioner only thought of withdrawing the application dated 31. 12. 1992 and he did not decide to withdraw the application, and, therefore, that withdrawal letter would not come in the way of the Management acting on the application submitted by the petitioner on 31. 12. 1992 under the VRS. In conclusion, learned Standing Counsel for the Management would maintain that no exception can be taken to Annexure-C dated 29. 1. 1992 and he did not decide to withdraw the application, and, therefore, that withdrawal letter would not come in the way of the Management acting on the application submitted by the petitioner on 31. 12. 1992 under the VRS. In conclusion, learned Standing Counsel for the Management would maintain that no exception can be taken to Annexure-C dated 29. 1. 1993 relieving the petitioner from duties of the company on the afternoon of 29. 1. 1993. ( 9 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the only question that arises for decision is whether the relief of the writ petitioner from the service of the company on the afternoon of 29. 1. 1993 is justified and legal? ( 10 ) THE petitioner made an application for voluntary retirement under the VRS on 31. 12. 1992. The VRS framed by the Management and notified vide Circular No. MNPM/08/8730 dated 4th November 1988, inter alia, provides that any employee who has completed 10 years of service in the company or completed 40 years of age may seek voluntary retirement by a written request. Clause (b) of the vrs invests a discretion in the Management either to grant or not to grant voluntary retirement for the reasons to be recorded in writing clause (c) of the VRS speaks about entitlement of an employee whose request has been accepted under the VRS, and it reads as follows:c) The terminal payments available to an employee who seeks voluntary retirement would be: i) ii) iii) iv) one month /three months notice pay/ (as per the conditions of service applicable to him ). The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the termination of the services of the writ petitioner came into force with effect from 28. 1. 1993. We do not agree with the learned Judge and according to us, the termination of services of the writ petitioner took place only on the afternoon of 29. 1. 1993 as reflected in annexure-C dated 29. 1. 1993, that is to say, before the expiry of a period of three months from the date of submission of the application under the VRS, ie. 31. 12. 1992. 10. We find an error apparent on the face of the record. 1. 1993 as reflected in annexure-C dated 29. 1. 1993, that is to say, before the expiry of a period of three months from the date of submission of the application under the VRS, ie. 31. 12. 1992. 10. We find an error apparent on the face of the record. Even eschewing completely what is pleaded and what is produced by the writ petitioner and if we go by the documents of the Management itself, the following three facts would emerge over which, there may not be any controversy, and they are; (1) on 31. 12. 1992, the petitioner had submitted an application under the VRS expressing his intention to retire voluntarily (2) on 28. 1. 1993, the petitioner submitted a letter extracted above to the Management withdrawing his application under one VRS. If paragraphs 1 and 2 of the letter are read together as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the management, it indicates that as on 28. 1. 1993 the petitioner did not make up his mind finally as to whether he should seek voluntary retirement under the VRS or not. But, at the same time, the said letter speaks loudly that the Management was requested not to take any further action on the letter submitted by the petitioner on 21. 12. 1992. The writ petitioner had requested the Management in unmistakable terms to keep his letter dated 31. 12. 1992 in abeyance for some more time. The phrase for some more time , in the context only means till the Management hears from the petitioner (3) having received the letter of the petitioner on 28. 1. 1993 itself, the management relieved thereby meaning, terminated the services of the petitioner on the afternoon of 29. 1. 1993. ( 11 ) IT is trite that on 29. 1. 1993 there was no request of the writ petitioner before the Management to permit him to retire under the vrs and the earlier request contained in the letter/application dated 31. 12. 1992 was rescinded by the petitioner on 28. 1. 1993 itself. Therefore, in the absence of any request on 29. 1. 1993, the action of the Management in relieving the petitioner on the afternoon of 29. 1. 1993 was totally arbitrary and in utter violation of principles of natural justice and the said action should be condemned as unauthorised. 12. 1992 was rescinded by the petitioner on 28. 1. 1993 itself. Therefore, in the absence of any request on 29. 1. 1993, the action of the Management in relieving the petitioner on the afternoon of 29. 1. 1993 was totally arbitrary and in utter violation of principles of natural justice and the said action should be condemned as unauthorised. ( 12 ) IN this regard, we do not wish to burden our Judgment with the case law. The case law is well settled. As already pointed out supra it is the right and liberty of an employee to withdraw his resignation or an application submitted under VRS at any time before such resignation or application is accepted by the Management in accordance with relevant service Regulations/provisions of the VRS unless rules or regulations governing service of the employee concerned provide otherwise. In holding so, we are fortified by the judgments of the Apex Court in SHAMBHU MURARI SINHA vs project AND DEVELOPMENT INDIA LIMITED, AND ANOTHER1, and MANJUSHREE PATHAK vs THE ASSAM INDUSTRIAL development CORPORATION LIMITED, AND OTHERS2. ( 13 ) IN the result and for the foregoing reasons we allow. Writ appeal 8228 of 1999 and dismiss Writ Appeal 7729 of 1999, and allow Writ Petition No. 7118 of 1993 and quash the impugned order annexure-C of the Management dated 29. 1. 1993 and declare that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into services of the company with backwages and other attendant benefits, pecuniary or otherwise, except the backwages for the period from the date of termination of 1. 2000 (5) SCC 621 2. 2000 (7) SCC 390 his services till the order of the learned Single Judge. However, it is brought to our notice that the company has been wound up and the winding up of the company is seized by the company law Court. It is not for us to decide on the entitlement of the petitioner to one reliefs flowing from this order in view of this development brought to our notice in this appeal. Suffice it to state that it is for the petitioner to work out legal remedies in the light of the development viz. winding up of the company, before the Company Law Court. Suffice it to state that it is for the petitioner to work out legal remedies in the light of the development viz. winding up of the company, before the Company Law Court. We direct that in working out the reliefs granted in this order, the money paid by the petitioner as directed by the learned Single Judge and any money paid by the Management to the petitioner, if any, are entitled to be adjusted/refunded. In the facts and circumstances of the case, both the parties are directed to bear their respective costs. --- *** --- .