ORDER 1. This order shall also govern the field of WP No. 91/2002 (Sayeed Khan v. M.P. Police Housing Corporation Ltd. and others); WP No. 3360/2002 (R.K. Shrivastava v. M.P. Police Housing Corporation and others); and WP No. 3445/2002 (M.L. Raidas v. M.P. Police Housing Corporation and another), since the common question is involved in all these petitions. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: (i) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records for its kind perusal. (ii) To quash the impugned scheme in Annexure P-9 and the order in Annexure P-13, by issuance of an appropriate writ or direction. (iii) To restrain the respondents from winding up the Corporation i.e. respondent No.1 by issuance of an appropriate writ and or direction. (iv) To command the respondents to continue the petitioner in service on his post of Sub- Engineer with all consequential benefits, by issuance of an appropriate writ and or direction. (v) Any other relief deemed fit under the circumstances of the case may kindly be granted together with cost of this petition. 3. The petitioner was serving under the employment of M.P. Police Housing Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). There was a Cabinet decision to close down the Corporation. Eventually the Corporation gave notice to the petitioner directing petitioner to give his consent of voluntary retirement in writing necessarily before 31.1.2001, failing which necessary law will follow. Eventually the petitioner submitted the application for voluntary retirement and the same was accepted by the Corporation and the petitioner was voluntarily retired. 4. Later on, another decision was taken by the Cabinet not to close the Corporation and this order was passed on 4.2.2004. The contention of Shri D.K. Dixit and Shri Harpreet Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner is that since there was a decision of the State Government to close the Corporation and the employees were directed to submit their application for obtaining voluntary retirement necessarily, therefore, under this pretext the application of voluntary retirement was submitted. The contention of Shri D.K. Dixit and Shri Harpreet Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner is that since there was a decision of the State Government to close the Corporation and the employees were directed to submit their application for obtaining voluntary retirement necessarily, therefore, under this pretext the application of voluntary retirement was submitted. Since later on the Cabinet took another decision not to close the Corporation vide its order dated 4.2.2004 arid the earlier orders dated 11.3.1998, 28.1.2000 and 7.6.2002 were set aside and it was directed to continue the existence of the Corporation, therefore it was obligatory on the part of the Corporation to take back the petitioner in service, 5. On the other hand Shri Ramesh Shrivastava and Shri J.L. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation have submitted that the petitioner submitted application for voluntary retirement which was accepted and therefore now they cannot ask for reinstatement merely on the ground that the decision has been taken by the Cabinet not to close the Corporation. In support of their contention, they placed reliance on the decision of Indore Bench in Smt. Babita Francis v. M.P. Police Housing Corporation Ltd. and another [WP No. 1040/2002 decided on 30.9.2002] which was later on affirmed by the Division Bench of Indore Bench in LPA No. 347/2002 on 2.12.2002. 6. The Corporation accepted the application of petitioner and directed that he shall be voluntarily retired with effect from 7.12.2001. Earlier to this date, the interim order was passed by this Court directing parties to maintain status quo. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner of WP No. 6189/2001, petitioner of WP No. 3360/2002 and petitioner of WP No. 3445/2002 were continuing in service on account of the interim order passed by this Court and this position is not disputed by the respondents. However, no interim order was passed in WP No. 91/2002. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that these petitions deserve to be allowed. 8. On going through the notice issued to the petitioner directing to submit the application for obtaining voluntary retirement was issued by the Corporation on the ground that a decision has been taken by the State Government to close the Corporation. 8. On going through the notice issued to the petitioner directing to submit the application for obtaining voluntary retirement was issued by the Corporation on the ground that a decision has been taken by the State Government to close the Corporation. Under this pretext that the Corporation is being closed and a decision has been taken in this regard by the State Government the petitioner submitted aplication for voluntary retirement. Nowhere in the notice it has been so mentioned that the persons who want to retain their service may retain their service and the persons who want to opt for voluntary retirement they may submit necessary application. Indeed, if the notice is read in proper perspective, it is gathered that it was directed to the petitioner to submit the application for obtaining voluntary retirement on or before 31.1.2001 failing which his case shall be dealt in accordance with law. Thus, no option was left to the petitioner except to submit the application for obtaining voluntary retirement. If later on the State Government has taken some other decision not to close the Corporation, the view of this Court is that the services of petitioner must be taken back. The decision of Smt. Babita Francis (supra) is not applicable in the present case for the simple reason that when the said order was passed on 13.9.2002, there was no decision of the Cabinet not to close the Corporation. 9. The petitioner submitted his application it was assured by the Corporation that the Corporation is being closed and under that context since it was assured to him that the Corporation will be closed, he submitted the requisite application for obtaining voluntary retirement. There is nothing in the notice in order to show that the option was left to the employee either to submit application for voluntary retirement or not to submit any such application. Had that been so, the matter would have been definitely different. In that situation, since the Corporation would have been in existence, it could have been said that the relationship of employer and employee ceased. Had that been so, the matter would have been definitely different. In that situation, since the Corporation would have been in existence, it could have been said that the relationship of employer and employee ceased. But in the notice the intention of the Corporation was expressed that on the basis of the decision of the State Government the Corporation is going to be· closed and a direction was issued to the petitioner to submit an application for obtaining voluntary retirement failing which the procedure prescribed under the law will be followed and thus there was no option to the petitioner except to submit the requisite application. The action of petitioner is on the basis of the assurance of the Corporation and if later on another decision is taken to continue the Corporation, the view of this Court is that the services of petitioner should be taken back. 10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, all these petitions are allowed, the order of voluntary retirement passed by the Corporation is hereby quashed and the Corporation is directed to take back the petitioner in service and to issue necessary order in that regard. The respondents are hereby directed to pay the wages to petitioner - Sayeed Khan of WP No. 91/2002. Let the payment be made on or before 31.3.2006, failing which he shall be entitled to the interest @ 5% per annum with effect from 1.4.2006. 11. Looking to the facts and circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.