Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.04.2004 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4797/1994 allowing the writ petition of Respondent No. 1. The respondent had filed the writ petition for quashing the order dated 04.08.1994 purporting to retire him from service, and for consequential benefits. Facts of the case are as follows. 2. On 21.07.1994 the respondent, a Class IV Employee of the appellant Rajasthan Rajya Avasan Sangh Ltd. - a registered co-operative society, filed application seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 310.1994. The letter stated that if the Sangh i.e., the appellant society has no objection he may be retired from an earlier date. It may be mentioned here that after the word earlier (in Hindi ) dated 31.08.1994 was written by hand. There is a small dispute about this and we shall refer to it later in this order. Continuing with the narration of events, on 10.08.1994 the respondent withdrew the said letter seeking voluntary retirement. However, in the meantime on 04.08.1994 the impugned order had been issued retiring him with effect from 31.08.1994. According to the respondent, as he had withdrawn the offer before the retirement was to take effect, it could not be acted upon. The appellant took the stand that the respondent had sought voluntary retirement under Golden Hand- shake scheme and the order was in accordance with the letter dated 21.07.1994. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the contentious part across on behalf of the parties set aside the impugned order dated 04.08.1994 directing the appellant to take the respondent back in service. 3. On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that the order of voluntary retirement having been accepted on 04.08.1994, and a formal order issued to that effect the respondent could not withdraw the offer on 10.08.1994. Reliance was placed on Raj Kumar vs. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 180 and Union of India & Anr. vs. Wing Commander T . Parthasarathy, 2001 (1) SCC 158 . 4. On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that the effective date of the proposed retirement being 310.1994, it was open to the respondent to withdraw the offer at any time prior to that date. Reliance was placed on Srikantha S.M. vs. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd., 2005 (8) SCC 314 . Parthasarathy, 2001 (1) SCC 158 . 4. On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that the effective date of the proposed retirement being 310.1994, it was open to the respondent to withdraw the offer at any time prior to that date. Reliance was placed on Srikantha S.M. vs. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd., 2005 (8) SCC 314 . As regards the sentence occurring in the letter dated 21.07.1994 to the effect that if the rules permit the appellant may retire the respondent even earlier, was incorporated in the letter on the pressure of the management. 5. It is not necessary to go into the controversy as to whether the sentence occurring at the end of the letter leaving it open to the appellant to retire from a date prior to 310.1994, to be precise, with effect from 31.08.1994 was written under pressure or the same was voluntary. The controversy, in our opinion, has no bearing on the ultimate result of the case, for even if the appellants stand is accepted and it is held that the respondent had volunteered to take retirement with effect from 31.08.1994, a question would arise whether he could not withdraw the offer prior to that date. 6. The case of prospective resignation (voluntary retirement stands on the same footing) came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Gopal Chandra Misra, 1978 (2) SCC 301 . The Court took the view that where the resignation requires acceptance and, therefore takes effect at a future date, it can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective. The following observations may usefully be quoted:- “It will bear repetition that the general principle is that in the absence of a legal contractual or constitutional bar. A prospective resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective, and it becomes effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office tenure of the resigner. This general rule is equally applicable to Government servants and constitutional functionaries. In the case of a Government servant/or functionary/ who cannot, under the conditions of his service/or office, by his own unilateral act of tendering resignation, give up his service/or office, normally, the tender of resignation becomes effective and his service/or office tenure terminated, when it is accepted by the competent authority.” 7. In Punjab National Bank vs. P.K. Mittal, 1989 Supp. In Punjab National Bank vs. P.K. Mittal, 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 175. The Supreme Court considered the question as to whether the resignation becomes effective on the expiry of the particular period or from a future date as desired by the employee. It was held that the resignation being a voluntary act of an employee, he may choose to resign with immediate effect or with a notice of less than three months if the employer agrees to the same or he may also resign at a future date on the expiry or beyond the period of three months. 8. It may be relevant to mentioned here that in terms of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme under which the respondent offered to voluntarily retire, he was entitled among other things to “one months/three months notice pay (as per the conditions of service applicable to him)”. It is not in dispute that in terms of Rule 23-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules applicable to the employees of the appellant society a temporary employee is entitled to one months notice. If he has completed three years of service, he is entitled to three months notice. Rule 5 of the Pension rules which deals with voluntary retirement also contemplates three months notice. Thus, in terms of the rules the retirement could take effect only after three months of the officer i.e., 210.1994. 9. Even if the retirement of the respondent is held to be effective from 31.08.1994 which is what the order dated 04.08.2004 says it would follow that the respondent could at any time withdraw the offer prior to that date. The respondent having withdrawn the offer on 10.08.1994, the order dated 04.08.1994 retiring him cannot be said to be final and in accordance with law. 10. In Srikantha S.M. vs. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd. (Supra), the appellant tendered his resignation on 04.01.1993 and sought to be relieved from duties from the date “as per company rules”. His resignation was accepted on 04.01.1993 itself with immediate effect. However, by another letter on the same day he was informed that his casual leave had been sanctioned from 05.01. to 13.01.1993 and 14.01.1993 being a holiday, he would be relieved by the close of working hours on 15.01.1993. On 08.01.1993, by a letter, the appellant withdrew his resignation. His resignation was accepted on 04.01.1993 itself with immediate effect. However, by another letter on the same day he was informed that his casual leave had been sanctioned from 05.01. to 13.01.1993 and 14.01.1993 being a holiday, he would be relieved by the close of working hours on 15.01.1993. On 08.01.1993, by a letter, the appellant withdrew his resignation. On 15.01.1993 his service certificate alongwith a cheque for certain amount was given to the appellant at 5.30 PM and he was not allowed to work thereafter. The Supreme Court held, reversing the Judgment s of the High Court, that by reason of the grant of casual leave upto 13.01.1993, the relationship of employer and employer continued, the relieving order and the salary slip also made it clear that he continued in service upto 15.01.1993; the appellant, therefore, could withdraw his resignation before that date. 11. The decision in Raj Kumar vs. Union of India (Supra), was noticed in Union of India vs. Wing Commander T. Partathasarathy (Supra), and it was observed that “this Court merely emphasised the position that when a public servant has invited by his letter of resignation determination of his employment his service clearly stands terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation was accepted by the appropriate authority and in the absence of any law or rule governing the condition of the service to the contrary, it will not be open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate authority and that till the resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance, the public servant concerned had locus poenitentiac but not thereafter.” 12. In the case of Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy (Supra), Court observed:-“A request for premature retirement which required the acceptance of the competent or appropriate authority will not be complete till accepted by such competent authority and the request could definitely be withdrawn before it became so complete. It is all the more so in a case where the request for premature retirement was made to take effect from a future date as in this case. These decisions, therefore, instead of helping the appellant rather lends support to the case of the respondent. It is all the more so in a case where the request for premature retirement was made to take effect from a future date as in this case. These decisions, therefore, instead of helping the appellant rather lends support to the case of the respondent. 13 On the basis of the above discussion we have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that it was open to the respondent to withdraw his offer of voluntarily retirement on 10.08.1994 and the impugned order of 04.08.1994 retiring him (with effect from 310.1994) was not in accordance with law, and the learned Single Judge thus did not commit any error in setting aside the order. 14. In result, the appeal is dismissed.