Judgment 1. The petitioner respondent was initially appointed on 110.1974 as Lower Division Clerk in the respondent Bank. On 16.03.1994, the petitioner respondent submitted an application for voluntary retirement under Golden Seak Hand Scheme stating therein that he wants to be voluntarily retired from 31.03.1994. 2. On 17.03.1994, the application for voluntary retirement has been accepted. 3. On 24.03.1994, he wrote a letter for withdrawal of the application submitted for voluntary retirement. 4. The learned Single Judge while following the decision of this Court in the case of Asath Ali Khan vs. State of Rajasthan, 1993 (2) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 267, allowed the writ petition holding that petitioner respondent can withdraw his application for voluntary retirement before the opned date i.e., the date on which he sought voluntary retirement. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that now the cases, which have been relied upon by the Counsel for the respondent i.e., Balram Gupta vs. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1987 SC 2354 = 1988 (1) SLJ 79 (SC), J.N. Srivastava vs. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1571 and Shambhu Muarai Sinha vs. Project & Development India & Anr., 2000 (5) SCC 621 = 2000 (3) SLJ 367 (SC), have been considered by the Supreme Court in its latest decision in the case of Vice Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.S.I.D.C. Ltd. & Anr. vs. R. Varaprasad & Ors., 2003 (3) All India Services Law Journal 114 and in that case the Apex Court laid down the law that when one seeks the voluntary retirement once, he cannot withdraw thereafter. Though in the end, the benefit has been given to some of the employees, who were continued as per the Court order and were about to retire. Therefore, the benefit was given to them to continue for some more period i.e., till retirement. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Balram Gupta vs. Union of India & Anr (Supra), J.N. Srivastava vs. Union of India & Anr (Supra) and Shambhu Muarai Sinha vs. Project and Development India and Anr. (Supra), and also the decision of this Court in the case of Asath Ali Khah vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra). 7. The facts are not in dispute that petitioner respondent applied for voluntary retirement under the scheme on 16.03.1994 from 31.03.1994. (Supra), and also the decision of this Court in the case of Asath Ali Khah vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra). 7. The facts are not in dispute that petitioner respondent applied for voluntary retirement under the scheme on 16.03.1994 from 31.03.1994. His application for voluntary retirement was accepted on 17.03.1994 and he withdrew the application by sending a letter dated 24.03.1994. After considering the decisions in the case of Balram Gupta vs. Union of India & Anr. (Supra), J.N. Srivastava vs. Union of India & Anr. (Supra), and Shambhu Muarai Sinha vs. Project and Development India & Anr. (Supra), the Apex Court in his latest Judgment in the case of Vice Chairman and Managing Director A.P.S.I.D.C. Ltd. vs. B. Varaprasad (Supra), held and concluded in parties of its Judgment , which for ready reference reads as under:-“The decisions cited on behalf of the respondents do not help them. Unlike in those decisions these respondents filed applications offering to take voluntary retirement under the scheme their applications were accepted by the Corporation which were acknowledge by these respondents; they made representations for withdrawal from the VRS Scheme several days after the Corporation accepted their applications made seeking voluntary retirement; merely because they could not be relieved in view of the interim order passed by the High Court in the writ petitions and that they could not be relieved immediately after the cut off date for want of funds to be received from the Government by the Corporation, they could not take away the result or escape consequence of the acceptance of their voluntary retirement by the Corporation. In other words, question of withdrawal of their applications made for seeking voluntary retirement after their acceptance did not arise and they could not be permitted to do so in law. It is fairly settled now that the voluntary retirement once accepted in terms of the Scheme or rules, as the case may be, cannot be withdrawn. In these appeal from the facts it is clear that the applications of the respondents opting for voluntary retirement under the Scheme were accepted and even the acceptance was communicated to them. Thereafter, they filed the writ petitions. Hence, the High Court was not right in allowing the writ petitions holding that they applied for withdrawal before the effective date considering the date of relieving the employees as the effective date. Thereafter, they filed the writ petitions. Hence, the High Court was not right in allowing the writ petitions holding that they applied for withdrawal before the effective date considering the date of relieving the employees as the effective date. In the light of the discussions made in Civil Appeal No. 5638 of 1999 the High Court, in our view, was wrong in treating 31.07.1999 as an effective date. The decisions relied on by the respondents before the High Court or in this Court on facts do not help them. Moreover, position is to be examined on the facts, terms of the VRS and circumstances governing a particular case of withdrawal offer made seeking voluntary retirement after its due acceptance.” 8. This issue has also been considered by the larger bench of Apex Court in the case of Bank of India & Ors. vs. O.P. Swarnakar & Ors., 2003 (2) SCC 721 , wherein the issue was that once the employee accepts the retiral benefits, he cannot ask for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement. 9. This aspect has been considered by Apex Court in Para 119 of its Judgment . For ready reference, that reads as under:-“Estoppel by the acceptance of benefits: estoppel is frequently based upon the acceptance and retention, by one having knowledge or notice of the facts, of benefits from a transaction, contract, instrument, regulation which he might have rejected or contested. This doctrine is obviously a branch of the rule against assuming inconsistent positions. As a general principle, one who knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract or conveyance is estopped to deny the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or conveyance. This rule has to be applied to do equity and must not be applied in such a manner as to violate and principles of right and good conscience.” 10. In this case the admitted facts are that the petitioner respondent has applied for voluntary retirement under the scheme. His application for voluntary retirement has been accepted before he withdrew the application and he has taken all the retiral benefits except gratuity. 11. Counsel for the appellant Mr. Shah submits that he himself has not taken the amount of gratuity. They never refused to give the amount of gratuity. 12. Considering these admitted facts, we see no substance in this appeal. 11. Counsel for the appellant Mr. Shah submits that he himself has not taken the amount of gratuity. They never refused to give the amount of gratuity. 12. Considering these admitted facts, we see no substance in this appeal. However, we direct the appellant to pay the amount of gratuity to the respondent within 2 months, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum on the delayed payment, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, if not already paid. 13. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 14. Since, the appeal has been disposed of , the stay application connected therewith also stands disposed of accordingly