B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants Physical Research Laboratory which is a unit of Department of Space, Government of India and the Head, Pandga have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 29th March, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court allowing the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 4106 of 2004 filed by the respondent petitioner by directing the respondents present appellants to allow the original petitioner to withdraw his voluntary retirement notice dated 5th January, 2004 and quashing and setting aside the letter of acceptance of such notice. ( 2 ) THE petitioner - Shri Purshottam A. Vadher was working as Assistant Administrative Officer with the Physical Research Laboratory (for short, prl ). He had put in more than 30 years of service with the original respondents. He started his career as a Clerk from 16th September, 1972. From time to time, he earned promotions and lastly, he was promoted as Assistant Administrative Officer from 1st September, 1992. His entire career of more than 30 years remained totally unblemished. As it happens at other places, he had some harassment from the original respondent no. 2 in the year 2001 and when his turn came for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer, his case was overlooked for which he had approached this court by way of Special Civil Application No. 9355 of 2002, which is already pending before this court for final disposal. Any man who had put in more than 30 years of service is bound to be disturbed because of the harassment and feeling of injustice. The same thing happened with the original petitioner in this case also. He gave a notice dated 5th January, 2004 to the Director, PRL, Ahmedabad for voluntary retirement due to unavoidable circumstances and seeking permission to relieve him from service with effect from 5th April, 2004. Without wasting any time, the respondent no. 2 Head Pandga took up the opportunity and immediately passed the order on that very day i. e. on January 5, 2004 of accepting the notice of voluntary retirement given by the original petitioner under the provisions of Rule 48-A (2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short, the Rules) and ordered that he will be relieved from PRL service on voluntary retirement with effect from 6th April, 2004 (F/n ). The petitioner was also asked to fill in the enclosed set of pension papers and submit the same to his office for further necessary action. The same was received by the original petitioner on 6th January, 2004. Immediately on the 3rd day i. e. on 8th January, 2004, the original petitioner requested the respondent no. 2 to supply Rule 48-A (2) of the Rules but the same was not made available to him till 25th March, 2004. ( 3 ) FROM the facts narrated hereinabove, it is clear that the original petitioner was mentally disturbed because of the feeling of injustice meted out to him and some harassment from the higher authority. Therefore, he gave voluntary retirement notice dated January 5, 2004 but within a period of one week i. e. on 13th January, 2004, when he became calm, cool and composed, then, considering his personal as well as family reasons namely that his old parents and wife and daughter to be maintained by him etc. , he sought withdrawal of his notice dated 5th January, 2004 of voluntary retirement. Accordingly, by a letter dated 13th January, 2004 (Annexure-D to the main petition), he requested the Director, PRL to allow him to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement and treat the same as cancelled and that he was not in a position to submit any forms for pension papers. It seems that to get rid of the petitioner by accepting his notice of voluntary retirement on the same day i. e. 5th January, 2004, the original respondents did not even reply to his letter of withdrawal of voluntary retirement. Therefore, he was obliged to send reminder dated 11th February, 2004. The same also remained unreplied. Therefore, one more reminder dated 8th March, 2004 was written. Then by a letter dated 17th March, 2004, he requested the Director to allot him work but the original respondents did not even bother to reply to it. He was running against the time as he was to be relieved from service from 6th April, 2004 as per the order dated January 5, 2004 (Annexure-B to the main writ petition), therefore, he approached this court on 01st April, 2004 by way of Special Civil Application No. 4106 of 2004. He was running against the time as he was to be relieved from service from 6th April, 2004 as per the order dated January 5, 2004 (Annexure-B to the main writ petition), therefore, he approached this court on 01st April, 2004 by way of Special Civil Application No. 4106 of 2004. (1)Initially, the said writ petition was placed before the Honble First court before the Division Bench of this court on 2nd April, 2004 and the Honble First Court straightaway issued rule on it and stayed the order of relieving the petitioner from the post of Assistant Administrative Officer subject to hearing the other side and by way of a mandatory order, their Lordships permitted the petitioner to continue to hold this post and the respondents were directed to pay the petitioner for it accordingly. We are told by the learned counsel for the parties at the bar that on the objection raised by learned counsel Shri Sanjanwala for the original respondents present appellants, the matter was placed before the Single Judge on the ground that it was a service matter. Learned counsel Shri Shalin Mehta for the original petitioner also stated at the bar that according to him, the petitioner being a Central Government employee, it was to be placed before the Division Bench of this court only, as per the High Court Rules but he had no objection if the learned Single Judge heard and decide the same, therefore, it was placed before the learned Single Judge. We are also told that later on, a Civil Application was filed by the original respondents for vacating the ex-parte ad-interim relief but the learned Single Judge thought it fit to decide the main writ petition. Accordingly, it was heard by the learned Single Judge (Akil Kureshi, J.) and allowed by judgment and order dated 29th March, 2005, which is challenged in this appeal. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel Shri Sanjanwala for the appellants firstly submitted that once the notice of voluntary retirement given by the original petitioner was accepted by the authority on 5th January, 2004, then the relationship between them of master and servant had come to an end on 5th January, 2004 itself. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel Shri Sanjanwala for the appellants firstly submitted that once the notice of voluntary retirement given by the original petitioner was accepted by the authority on 5th January, 2004, then the relationship between them of master and servant had come to an end on 5th January, 2004 itself. Merely because later on, the petitioner changed his mind and submitted his letter of withdrawal of such notice of voluntary retirement would not entitle him to urge that he had withdrawn the notice of voluntary retirement before he was actually relieved from service on 6th April, 2004 and, therefore, he should be allowed to continue in service. He submitted that the learned Single Judge committed grave error in allowing the writ petition by holding that the relationship of master and servant continued even after acceptance of the notice of voluntary retirement. Mr. Sanjanwala also submitted that Rule 48-A (2) of the Rules gives discretion to accept the request made by the petitioner for withdrawal of his notice of voluntary retirement. In the instant case, the Director constituted the Committee to decide whether to accept his request for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement or not and on the receipt of the report of the Committee, the permission was refused. Thus, in absence of any malafide, it was not open to the learned Single Judge to sit over that decision in appeal and judicial review by the learned Single Judge, in exercise of his powers under Article 226, was not permissible. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Mr. Sanjanwala has relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of STATE BANK OF PATIALA vs. PHOOLPATI reported in (2005) 3 SCC Page 88. (1) As against that, learned counsel Shri Shalin Mehta for the present respondent original petitioner relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of BALRAM GUPTA vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC Page 228 and the latest judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of SRIKANTHA S. M. vs. M/s. BHARATH EARTH MOVERS LTD. reported in 2005 (8) SCALE Page 407 and submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition of the petitioner. ( 5 ) IN the instant case also, the submission made by Mr. reported in 2005 (8) SCALE Page 407 and submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition of the petitioner. ( 5 ) IN the instant case also, the submission made by Mr. Sanjanwala was that once the notice of voluntary retirement was given, it becomes operative immediately, if it was received by the authority and as soon as it is received and accepted by the authority, then automatically the dissolution of contract and the relationship of master and servant between the parties was brought about. This very submission was also made before the Honble Apex Court in the case of Balram Gupta (supra ). Repelling this contention, the Honble Supreme Court held that the petitioner is at liberty and is entitled independently without sub-rule (4) of Rule 48-A of the Pension Rules, as a Government servant, to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement. In Balram Guptas case (supra), he was not allowed to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement on the ground that no reasons were assigned by the petitioner for withdrawal of his notice of voluntary retirement. However, the Honble Court held that the reasons assigned by the petitioner that he was prevailed upon by his friends to have a second look at the matter was also a sufficient reason whereas in the instant case, the original petitioner has given solid and cogent reasons that as he was mentally disturbed, in haste, he gave notice of voluntary retirement but within one week thereof, he realised that he had to maintain his old-aged parents, his wife and a daughter. Therefore, realising his mistake, he immediately sent a letter dated 13th January, 2004 of withdrawal of his notice of voluntary retirement. (1)It is an undisputed fact that the original petitioner had put in long standing service of more than 30 years. He started his career in 1972 as a Clerk and from time to time, he earned promotion. He was Assistant Administrative Officer but when he was denied his legitimate right of further promotion to the post of Administrative Officer, then he was frustrated and because of the harassment from the higher authority received by him, he gave the notice of voluntary retirement in haste. He was Assistant Administrative Officer but when he was denied his legitimate right of further promotion to the post of Administrative Officer, then he was frustrated and because of the harassment from the higher authority received by him, he gave the notice of voluntary retirement in haste. When he has made out a good ground for withdrawal of the same, then without constituting the Committee, it should have been properly considered by the Director and his request should have been granted. When a person put in an unblemished and long standing service of more than 30 years and in a weak movement, and took wrong decision of giving notice of voluntary retirement, then, in our considered opinion, he should have been allowed to correct his mistake. (2)It clearly appears that in the instant case, the petitioner, within a period of one week, applied for withdrawal of his notice of voluntary retirement and thereafter sent repeated reminders to the authority but the authority had taken undue long time for taking the decision. Therefore, the petitioner had no option but to approach this court before 5th April, 2004. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner was not given any retirement benefits after acceptance of his notice of voluntary retirement and finding a very strong prima facie case in his favour, by an ex parte mandatory order, he was allowed to continue in service on 2nd April, 2004 by the Honble First Court. Therefore, under the interim orders of the court, he continued and remained in service till today, after his petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 29th March, 2005. ( 6 ) WE have been taken by Shri Sanjanwala through the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge in his judgment while allowing the writ petition. Having carefully gone through the same, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has given cogent reasons and rightly exercised his extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Hence, no interference by this court in this Letters Patent Appeal. (1)In view of the above discussion, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( 7 ) CIVIL Application is dismissed as the main appeal is dismissed. .