Judgment P.S. Asopa, J.-This special appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 02.06.2005 whereby the writ petition filed against non-withdrawal of voluntary retirement has been accepted with cost quantified at Rs. 5,000/-with the further direction that the petitioner (respondent) was continuing in service in lieu of interim order passed by the Court, therefore, there would be no necessity to further direct the respondents to take her in service or pay her salary. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the respondent-petitioner filed an application for conditional resignation/voluntary retirement on 210.2004 as she was superceded with the request to accept the resignation w.e.f. 310.2004 and if the same is not possible then treat the same as three months notice for voluntary retirement. The respondent-petitioner asked the appellant Board to get the earned leave sanctioned or her application for voluntary retirement be accepted and action be taken accordingly. The leave was sanctioned to the respondent-petitioner and she remained on P.L. upto 112.2004. The application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement/resignation was accepted on 15.01.2005 w.e.f. 20.01.2003. On 17.01.2005, the respondent-petitioner addressed a letter to the appellant stating that the letter of resignation is to be withdrawn. Similar request was made on 19.01.2005 for withdrawal of resignation/voluntary retirement. On 27.01.2005, it was informed to the respondent-petitioner that no further action was to be taken on her letters dated 17.01.2005, 19.01.2005 and 23.01.2005. 3. The short question involved in the matter is that “whether her resignation/voluntary retirement accepted from effective future date, could it be withdrawn before the said effective future date and that too in case when the resignation/voluntary retirement is conditional one or in protest of any adverse action of the employer”. 3. The short question involved in the matter is that “whether her resignation/voluntary retirement accepted from effective future date, could it be withdrawn before the said effective future date and that too in case when the resignation/voluntary retirement is conditional one or in protest of any adverse action of the employer”. The facts are not disputed, but still in order to appreciate the controversy in the better way, acceptance of the same on 15.01.2005 and 19.01.2005 are reproduced hereunder:- ek/;fed f k{kk cksM]Z jktLFkku] vtesj %& dk;kZy; vknsk %& Øekad % la LFkk@2005@09 fnukad % 15-01-2005 Jherh kkjnk ikjhd] lgk;d funsZkd }kjk izLrqr R;kx&i= fnukad 21-10-2004 ij xgurk ls fopkj dj ekuuh; v/;{k us buds R;kx&i= dh 03 ekg dh vof/k fnukad & 20-01-2005 dks iw.kZ gksus dh frfFk ls Lohdkj dj fy;k gSA u ipkr~ muds }kjk izLrqr vr% Jherh ikjhd dks fnukad 20-01-2005 dh e/;kg~r R;kx&i= dks okfuo` Lohdkj djrs gq, lsÙk fd;k tkrk gSA sd/- lfpo izfrfyfi lwpukFkZ ,oa vko;d dk;Zokgh gsrq %& 01- leLr vf /kdkjh 02- leLr vuqHkkx vf /kdkjh 03- lEcfU/kr vf /kdkjh 04- jf{kr i=koyh sd/- milfpo By Fax/By Hand/By Registered AD To, Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. Chairman Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. Ref :-Office order Sanstha./2005/09 dated 15.01.2005, received on 17.01.2005 Sir, On receipt of your abovecited office order, I immediately intimated to your goodself on 17.01.2005 itself that I have withdrawn my voluntary retirement letter dated 210.2004 within duration of notice period. Still I have not been intimated anything about my retirement withdrawal letter. I again inform you vide this fax/registered letter/by personal delivery letter that my letter dated 210.2004 be treated as withdrawn and cancelled. Yours sincerely, Sd/- (Mrs. Sharda Pareek) Assistant Director Dated: 19.01.2005 Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer 4. Learned Single Judge after considering contents of letters, intentions of parties, the proceedings on the aforesaid letters as well as legal position on the issue followed the Judgment s in Balram Gupta vs. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1987 SC 2354 ), J.N. Srivastava vs. Union of India AIR 1999 SC 1571 and Shambhu Murari Sinha vs. Project & Development India & Anr., 2000 (5) SCC 621 . Further on the issue of conditional resignation/voluntary retirement, learned Single Judge while relying on the Judgment in P.K. Ramachandra Iver & Ors. Further on the issue of conditional resignation/voluntary retirement, learned Single Judge while relying on the Judgment in P.K. Ramachandra Iver & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 1984 (2) SCC 141 held that looking the case from any angle, the impugned order accepting voluntary retirement of the petitioner cannot possibly stand, the same is quashed. 5. Learned Single Judge elaborately discussed the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case Vice Chairman and Managing Director, APSIDC Ltd. & Anr. vs. R. Varaprasad & Ors., 2003 (3) SLJ 114 and was of the firm view that the same is distinguishable and cannot be applied. The relevant portion of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge is reproduced hereunder:- “This Court is of the firm view that the Judgment of the Supreme Court in R. Varaprasad & Ors. (Supra), is distinguishable and cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. Supreme Court in the above case was dealing with number of appellants. Reliance of the learned Counsel for the respondents is on the observations made by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4658-4659/2001, discussion whereof has been made in Para 18 of the Judgment . Facts of the said appeals would reveal that the same were filed against a common order of the High Court. Respondents in the said appeal had filed writ petition in the High Court seeking direction to the appellant corporation to continue them in service till they attained age of superannuation. Respondents were covered by VRS Phase-III but the Corporation had fixed 310.1998 as the cut off date for voluntary retirement. Respondents of Phase-III filed application seeking voluntary retirement on 310.1998 and 10.12.1998. Corporation accepted their options on 211.1998 and 210.1998 which were also acknowledged by the respondent on 211.1998 and 011.1998. Thereafter, they applied for withdrawal of the options on 08.09.1999 and 26.02.1999 respectively. These respondents could not be relieved from service alongwith large number of employees, who were relieved on 31.07.1999 under VRS Phase-II because of the interim order granted by the High Court in writ petition filed by them. Division Bench of the High Court while placing reliance upon the Judgment s of the Supreme Court in Balram Gupta vs. Union of India (Supra), J.N. Srivastava (Supra) and Shambhu Murari (Supra), allowed the writ petitions and directed the corporation to continue them in service till their attain age of superannuation. Division Bench of the High Court while placing reliance upon the Judgment s of the Supreme Court in Balram Gupta vs. Union of India (Supra), J.N. Srivastava (Supra) and Shambhu Murari (Supra), allowed the writ petitions and directed the corporation to continue them in service till their attain age of superannuation. High Court was of the view that the respondents had filed withdrawal applications on 011.1999 and 26.02.1999 and by taking the benefit of interim directions granted by the High Court on 30.07.1999, continuned in service while they were to be relieved on 31.07.1999 with the result that they were still in service on that day. High Court was further of the view that these respondents had made applications for withdrawal before the effective date i.e., 31.07.1999. Supreme Court while distinguishing the Judgment in Bank of India (Supra), observed that unlike in the said case, the respondents in the present appeal had filed applications offering to take voluntary retirement under the scheme; their applications were accepted by the corporation which was acknowledged by the respondents; they made representations for withdrawal form VRS several days after the corporation accepted their applications seeking voluntary retirement; merely because they could not be relieved in view of the interim orders passed by the High Court in the writ petitions and they could not be relieved immediately after the cut off date, for want of funds to be received from the Government by the Corporation. It was in these circumstances, that it was further held that the respondents could not take away the result of escape consequence of the acceptance of their voluntary retirement by the corporation and that question of withdrawal of their applications made for seeking voluntary retirement after acceptance did not arise and they could not be permitted to do so. Pertinent observation of the Supreme Court distinguishing its earlier Judgment is that the respondents in the case aforesaid had made applications withdrawing for VRS after the corporation had accepted their applications and further that they could not be relieved simply because the High Court had passed interim directions. Judgment of the Supreme Court relief upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. It is not thus a case where the Supreme Court might have taken a contrary view from the one taken by its in Bank of India and Ors. Judgment of the Supreme Court relief upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. It is not thus a case where the Supreme Court might have taken a contrary view from the one taken by its in Bank of India and Ors. (Supra). In fact Supreme Court had itself distinguished the facts of the case in Bank of India and Ors. (Supra), from the one dealt by it in Vice Chairman and Managing Director (Supra).” 6. Learned Counsel for the Board also cited one Division Bench order of this Court in case of Bharatpur Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. vs. Khashan Singh, DB Civil Special Appeal No. 221/1997 decided on 13.04.2005 wherein the said Judgment of R. Varaprasad (Supra), has been followed. 7. At this juncture, we would like to point out the relevant rules. The Board of Secondary Education Regulation, 1990 came into force w.e.f. 01.04.1990. The in the said Rule 22, there is a provision for voluntary retirement on completion of 20 years of service which has been revised to 15 years, but there is no change in the language of the rule. The Board of Secondary Education Regulation, 1990 came into force w.e.f. 01.04.1990. The in the said Rule 22, there is a provision for voluntary retirement on completion of 20 years of service which has been revised to 15 years, but there is no change in the language of the rule. The relevant Rule 22 (a), 22(b) and 22(f) are reproduced here/under:- 22- 20 o"kZ dh isUku ;ksX; lsok iw.kZ djus ij LosPNk ls lsokfuo`fÙk%& ¼v½ ,d deZpkjh U;ure 3 ekg iwoZ vius fu;fä ikfz/kdkjh dks fyf [kr esdj cksMZ lswqa uksfVl nsok ls LosPNk ls lswUku ;ksok fuo`fÙk izkIr dj ldrk gS] ;fn mlus U;ure 20 o"kZ dk isX; lsokdky iw.kZ dj fy;k gS] vFkok 45 o"kZ dh vk;q izkIr dj yh gS] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gksA mDr nksuksa krksZa esa ls fdlh ,d ds iwjk gksus ds fnu ds ckn dHkh Hkh uksfVl esa vafdr rkjh[k ls] og lsokfuo`fÙk izkIr dj qpkjh dks Losldrk gSA ;g fu;fä ikfz/kdkjh ds vf /kdkj {ks= esa gksxk fd og ,lss fdlh deZPNk ls okfuo`lsfÙk izkIr djus ls jksd ldrk gS%& ¼1½ tks lsok esa fuyfEcr gks] ;k ¼2½ ftlds ekeys easvuqkklukRed dk;okgh fopkjk/khu gks vFkok xEHkhj n.M ¼Major Penalty½ nsus Zds mÌs; ls vuqkklukRed dk;okgh izkjEHk fd;s tkus dk fopkj gks rFkk vuqkklukRed ikfz/kdkjh a ds vk/kkj ij ;g vuqeku gks fd ,lh foHkkxh; vFkok vuqkklukRed dks ekeys dh ifjfLFkfr;kss dk;oZkgh dk ifj.kke deZpkjh dks lsok ls fu"dkflr vFkok c[kkZLr fd;s tkus ds n.M ds #i esa gksxk] vFkok ¼3½ ftlds ekeys esa U;k;ky; esa eqdnek pykus dk fopkj gks vFkok eqdnek nk;j dj fn;k x;k gksA ¼c½ ,d deZpkjh ftlus mijksDr mi&fofue 22 v ds vuqlkj lsok&fuo`fÙk izkIr djus dk uksfVl ns fn;k gks] og ml uksfVl esa vafdr lsokfuo`fÙk dh fnukad ls mls Lohdkj fd;k gqvk ekudj Lor% gh lsokfuo`/k es fÙk gks tkosxk ;fn l{ke vf /kdkjh }kjk bl lacaa dksbZ izfrdwy@vU;Fkk vknsk] deZpkjh }kjk fn;s x;s uksfVl dh vof /k lekIr gksus ls iwoZ] tkjh fd;s tkdj deZpkjh dks bldh fof /kor lwpuk ugha ns nh xbZ gksA q¼,Q½ ,d deZpkjh] fu; fä ikfz/kdkjh dh vuqefr ls fofu;e& 22¼v½ ds v/khu fn, x, uksfVl dks okfil ys ldrk gS] ckrsZ fd mlds }kjk uksfVl okfil ysus dk vkosnu vof /k lekIr gksus ls iwoZ fd;k tkrk gSA 8. In case of R. Varaprasad (Supra), before the Honble Supreme Court, there was a voluntary Retirement Scheme, which par takes the character of an invitation to treat not an offer as known in law relating to contract and an employee, who opt retirement under such a scheme with full knowledge of the terms where usually there is no provision for withdrawal of the option, therefore, when such option is accepted by the employer, such an employee cannot be turn around and withdraw the option already exercised nor could such employee make a claim contrary to the terms of the scheme. In service jurisprudence, option once exercised in final and the same cannot be withdrawn subsequently specifically under the terms of the scheme and law on the subject of option. Usually, in case of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, there is cut off date, then provision of option and then a particular date after which the employee is stand retired/relieved. These dates and option are usually not altered. The aims and object of such scheme is to rationalize the strength. The Honble Supreme Court in R. Varaprasad while dealing with the Voluntary Retirement Scheme having no specific provision for withdrawal and general provision for withdrawal usually not made applicable to such schemes. In the instant case, there is provision of voluntary retirement which can be invoked by employee on completion of 15 years of service wherein there is also a provision of withdrawal of the voluntary retirement under Regulation 22 before the expiry of the notice period, therefore, on facts also the said case of Honble Supreme Court of R. Varaprasad is clearly distinguished. 9. In case of Bharatpur Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. of the Division Bench R. Varaprasad has been followed, therefore, same is also distinguished. 10. Here in the instant case, the notice period of voluntary retirement was to expire on 20.01.2005 and the same was first withdrawn on 17.01.2005, therefore, said withdrawal was liable to be accepted in view of Regulation 22 but no action was taken. The inaction is arbitrary and withdrawal application was rightly accepted by learned Single Judge. 11. In view of the above, the Judgment of the learned Single Judge is upheld subject to the modification that the cost is made easy. The special appeal stands dismissed on merits.