In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is praying mainly for quashing the Government's order being No. 2/15/91-PHE, dated 7.10.05 by which while he was working as an Executive Engineer (PHED) at Churachandpur Division, he was purportedly allowed to retire voluntarily from his service, and also praying for directing the respondents to allow him to remain in service. 2. I have heard Mr. N. Kotishwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. L. Shyamkishore Singh, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. L. Gunindro, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. There is no dispute in respect of the following facts: on being appointed as Section Officer on regular basis against direct recruitment quota on the recommendation of M.P.S.C., the petitioner joined Government service on 5.3.75. On 18.7.05, while he was serving as an Executive Engineer of Churachandpur Division, he submitted a letter addressed to the Chief Engineer, PHE Department, Govt. of Manipur stating to the effect that he would like to retire voluntarily w.e.f. 31.7.05. A copy of the said letter is at Annexure-A/5 of the writ petition. The said letter submitted by the petitioner was forwarded by the Chief Engineer, PHE Department, Govt. of Manipur to the Dy. Secretary, PHE Department, Govt of Manipur on 19.7.05. A copy of the said forwarding letter of the Chief Engineer is at Annexure-A/6 of the writ petition. Then, the Under Secretary(PHE), Govt. of Manipur wrote to the Chief Engineer, PHED under letter No. 2/15/91-PHE dated 28.7.05 informing to the effect that as per relevant rules, a Government employee was required to apply three months ahead of the date from which he wished for voluntary retirement. By the said letter dated 28.7.05, the Chief Engineer, PHE Department, Manipur was requested to intimate the officer concerned (the petitioner) for resubmission of application for voluntary retirement after electing a date three months ahead from which the petitioner wanted/liked to retire. Annexure-A/7 to the writ petition is a copy of the above said letter. No application was filed by the petitioner electing a date three months ahead of the date from which he wished to retire. However, the impugned 2 order dated 7.10.05 was issued purportedly allowing the petitioner to retire from his service w.e.f. 17.10.05(A.N.). A copy of the impugned order is at Annexure-A/9. No application was filed by the petitioner electing a date three months ahead of the date from which he wished to retire. However, the impugned 2 order dated 7.10.05 was issued purportedly allowing the petitioner to retire from his service w.e.f. 17.10.05(A.N.). A copy of the impugned order is at Annexure-A/9. On 10.10.05, petitioner submitted an application to the Chief Engineer stating that he thereby withdrew his application dated 18.7.05 for voluntary retirement. A copy of the said application dated 10.10.05 is at Annexure-A/8 of the writ petition. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no valid application submitted by him seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 17.10.05 and as such the impugned order could have never been issued by the respondent No. 1. According to the petitioner, having regards to the relevant provisions of F.R. and Rules of the C.C.S (Pension) Rules, 1972 relating to voluntary retirement of a Govt. employee of the State of Manipur, the earlier application submitted by the petitioner on 18.7.05 cannot be considered as a valid application for the reasons that it was not submitted to the appointing authority, that it was not submitted to the appointing authority by giving clear three months' notice, that it neither gave any reason nor contained any request for curtailment of the period of notice of three months as per requirement of the relevant law. Further, according to the petitioner, since the respondent No. 1 had already rejected the said application of the petitioner dated 18.7.05 by its letter dated 28.7.05 addressed to the Chief Engineer, it could not have treated the application dated 18.7.05 as an application seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 17.10.05. Moreover, according to the petitioner, since he submitted an application on 10.10.05, which was prior to the date of retirement fixed by the Government, withdrawing the earlier application dated 18.7.05, the impugned order is not to be 3 given effect to and there was total non application of mind by the State Government while issuing it. Moreover, according to the petitioner, since he submitted an application on 10.10.05, which was prior to the date of retirement fixed by the Government, withdrawing the earlier application dated 18.7.05, the impugned order is not to be 3 given effect to and there was total non application of mind by the State Government while issuing it. As per pleading of the petitioner, the said earlier application dated 18.7.05 was submitted, while he was under severe mental depression and without proper application of his mind on the matter, due to his inability to bear undue pressure coming from various sources and on advice of his friends and well wishers, he decided not to seek voluntary retirement and accordingly, despite instructions of the State Government in letter dated 28.7.05, he did not file any fresh application in accordance with relevant law and he continued to discharge his functions as Executive Engineer, Churachandpur Division, PHE Department even after lapse of the said date 31.7.2005 mentioned in the application dated 18.7.05. 5. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that since the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement had been accepted by the Government, it could not be withdrawn. According to the respondents, the petitioner's application dated 10.10.05 for withdrawal of his application dated 18.7.05 was filed to the office of the respondent No. 2 on 12.10.05 and the same was received by the Dy. Secretary(PHE),Govt. of Manipur on 14.10.05 and put up the matter to the Commissioner(PHE) Govt. of Manipur only on 19.10.05. Further, according to the respondents, since the State Government had accepted the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement on 7.10.05, his application dated 10.10.05 for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement was not accepted. It is also the case of the respondent that on the basis of the said letter of the respondent No. 1 dated 28.7.05 to the respondent No. 2 intimating the petitioner for re-submitting his application after electing any date 3 months ahead of the date from 4 which he wished to retire, it cannot be said that the Government dismissed/rejected the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement. According to the respondents, the application filed by the petitioner for voluntary retirement was legally valid and the Government accepted the request of the petitioner by issuing the order dated 7.10.05. According to the respondents, the application filed by the petitioner for voluntary retirement was legally valid and the Government accepted the request of the petitioner by issuing the order dated 7.10.05. Further, according to the respondents, since there was no administrative inconvenience, the Government accepted the said application of the petitioner even though it was filed without electing any date 3 months ahead of the date from which he wished to retire. Moreover according to the respondents, subsequent to the issuance of the impugned order dated 7.10.05 the Govt. has issued order No. 2/5/04- PHE, dated 13.10.05 allowing one Shri Th. Baite, Assistant Engineer, to hold the charge of E.E., Churachandpur Division, PHED, Manipur as well as to work as D.D.O. of the said Division and it has also requisitioned Integrity Certificate and No Demand Certificate from the concerned authorities as necessary processes in connection with the said voluntary retirement. 6. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner reiterated his case that his application dated 18.7.05 was defective and as such it should not have been acted upon. According to the petitioner, he was never informed of the grant of earned leave and he continued to attend his office. Further, according to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed malafidely and the Government could not elect any date of voluntary retirement when the petitioner himself never sought to do so. 7. The employment of Government servants is governed by Rules. These Rules provide a particular age as 5 the age of superannuation. The Rules also provide that an employee who has completed a particular number of years of qualifying service can give notice that he will voluntarily retire on expiry of the period of notice. This is a right given to an employee by the said rules and it is to be exercised on fulfillment of the conditions and in the manner prescribed by the relevant rules. There is no dispute that the petitioner, having completed 30 years qualifying service and having reached more than 50 years of age, was eligible to apply for voluntary retirement under Rule 48 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 as well as under F.R. 56(K) which are applicable to an employee of the Government of the State of Manipur. There is no dispute that the petitioner, having completed 30 years qualifying service and having reached more than 50 years of age, was eligible to apply for voluntary retirement under Rule 48 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 as well as under F.R. 56(K) which are applicable to an employee of the Government of the State of Manipur. Rule 48(I-A), Rule 48(2) and Rule 48(3) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and F.R. 56(I-A) and F.R.56 (2) are other relevant provisions relating to voluntary retirement. 8. On perusal of the above said provisions of Rules relating to voluntary retirement, it is ascertained that the right of voluntary retirement is to be exercised in the following manner: (a) an application for voluntary retirement is to be submitted to the Appointing Authority; (b) such an application is to be submitted by the Government servant electing a date 3 months ahead, i.e., by giving 3 months clear notice ahead of the intended date of his retirement. (c) if an application for voluntary retirement is submitted by giving a notice less than 3 months, the concerned Government servant is to make a request in writing to the Appointing Authority to accept notice of less than 3 months giving reasons thereof; (d) on receipt of the above said request, the Appointing Authority may consider his request for curtailment of the period of notice of 3 months on merit and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the Appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of 3 months on the condition that the Government servant shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before expiry of the period of notice of 3 months; (e) a Government servant, who has elected to retire under the Rules and has given the necessary intimation to that effect to the appointing authority, may withdraw his election subsequently only with the specific approval of the appointing authority by making a request for withdrawal within the intended date of his retirement. 9. In the present case, it is ascertained that the petitioner's application dated 18.7.05 seeking voluntary retirement was addressed to the Chief Engineer, PHED, Manipur and as such it was not addressed to the appointing authority to whom it should have been addressed under the relevant Rules. 9. In the present case, it is ascertained that the petitioner's application dated 18.7.05 seeking voluntary retirement was addressed to the Chief Engineer, PHED, Manipur and as such it was not addressed to the appointing authority to whom it should have been addressed under the relevant Rules. In any case, the said application was purportedly brought to the notice of the State Government by the Chief Engineer, PHED, Manipur vide forwarding letter dated 19.7.05 addressed to the Dy. Secretary (PHE), Govt. of Manipur. On the basis of the said application dated 18.7.05, it is ascertained that the intended date of voluntary retirement of the petitioner was 31.7.05. In the said application dated 18.7.05, neither any request was made by the petitioner for accepting the notice of less than 3 months ahead of the intended date of retirement nor any reason was given as to why the notice of less than 3 months was given. The said application of the petitioner dated 18.7.05 was not, in fact, submitted in due compliance with the relevant rules relating to voluntary retirement. The State Government was 7 not purportedly ready to accept the said application as one made for voluntary retirement under the relevant rules and as such after noting that the failure on the part of the concerned Government employee(the petitioner) to give 3 months' notice ahead of the date from which he wished for voluntary retirement, the Chief Engineer, PHED, was asked, vide letter dated 28.7.05 to intimate the concerned employee (petitioner) for re-submission of his application after electing a date 3 months ahead from which he likes to retire. There is nothing to show that the petitioner submitted another application electing a date 3 months ahead from which he liked to retire. 10. In the above said facts and circumstances, it is very strange to learn that the State Government issued the impugned order dated 7.10.05 allowing the petitioner to retire voluntarily w.e.f. 17.10.05(A.N.). It is already seen that the petitioner fixed 31.7.05 as the date from which he intended or wished to retire in his application dated 18.7.05, on 28.7.05, i.e. some days before the intended date of retirement, the State Govt. asked him through the Chief Engineer, vide letter dated 28.7.05, for re-submission of his application after electing a date 3 months ahead from which he liked to retire. asked him through the Chief Engineer, vide letter dated 28.7.05, for re-submission of his application after electing a date 3 months ahead from which he liked to retire. On the basis of the said letter dated 28.7.05, one may reasonably infer that the State Government did not take the said application of the petitioner dated 18.7.05 as a valid application for voluntary retirement made in accordance with the relevant rules and that the State Government was not apparently ready to accept the said application as the one duly made. It is also ascertained that despite having knowledge about the said letter dated 28.7.05; the petitioner did not submit another application for his voluntary retirement. There is also no dispute that the 8 petitioner continued to discharge his function as E.E., Churachandpur Division, PHED even after 31.7.05 which was the date mentioned by him as the date from which he liked/ wished to retire. At the same time, the petitioner was granted earned leave for 45 days by the State Government, as seen from Annexure-D/2 to the affidavit in-opposition of the respondents. In the facts and circumstances, there was a legitimate expectation that the matter relating to petitioner's application for voluntary retirement was closed and that in the absence of any fresh application from his side in accordance with the relevant rules, no action would be taken from the side of the State Government in connection with his voluntary retirement. 11. However, contrary to the said legitimate expectation, the State Government issued the impugned order dated 7.10.05 fixing 17.10.05 as the date from which the petitioner was to retire voluntarily. 17.10.05 was never fixed by the petitioner as the date of his voluntary retirement. According to the respondents, in the absence of any administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority could accept the application filed by the petitioner even though it was filed without giving 3 months' notice. In this connection, it is to be pointed out that the petitioner did not make any request to the appointing authority to accept notice of less than 3 months by giving reasons in that connection as required under F.R.56(I-A)(a) and Rule 48(IA)(a) of the C.C.S.(Pension)Rules, 1972. In this connection, it is to be pointed out that the petitioner did not make any request to the appointing authority to accept notice of less than 3 months by giving reasons in that connection as required under F.R.56(I-A)(a) and Rule 48(IA)(a) of the C.C.S.(Pension)Rules, 1972. Further, in the context of the State Government's letter dated 28.7.05 directing the petitioner to re-submit another application and thereby creating a legitimate expectation that the application dated 18.7.05 was of no consequence, sufficient and cogent reasons should have been disclosed as to why the State 9 Government decided to accept the same application. No reason is found to have been disclosed except for the assertion that in the absence of administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority was competent to accept the said application. In my considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not fair and just on the part of the appointing authority to accept the said application dated 18.7.05 and fixed 17.10.05 arbitrarily as the date from which the petitioner was to retire voluntarily. By doing so, the petitioner, who failed to file an application for voluntary retirement in accordance with relevant rules, despite specific instruction to him through his Head of Department in that regard, was, in effect, made to retire compulsorily w.e.f. 17.10.05. 12. In the facts and circumstances, there was no volition or intention on the part of the petitioner to retire from his service and as such by making him to retire from his service from the date fixed by the authority, in effect, he was made to retire compulsorily. Such a result is not permissible in law. 13. On perusal of the relevant rules already mentioned above, I do not find any provision empowering the appointing authority to fix a date convenient to it or thought proper and right by it for voluntary retirement of a Government servant in the absence of any valid application from the side of the Government servant for voluntary retirement and, as such, in the absence of a valid expression of his volition or intention for voluntary retirement in accordance with the relevant rules. 10. 14. 10. 14. Had the petitioner given a notice in writing to the appointing authority at least 3 months before the date on which he wished to retire, his retirement would have come into effect automatically on the expiry of the period specified in the notice. At the relevant time the petitioner was not under suspension, no departmental proceeding was pending or contemplated against him. Accordingly, had the petitioner applied in accordance with the relevant rules, it was not open to the appointing authority to withhold permission to the petitioner from retiring voluntarily. While dealing with similar provisions involved in the present case, Supreme Court in the State of Harynana Vs- S.K.Singhal, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1829 , at para 13 held: “13…Thus, from the aforesaid three decisions it is clear that if the right to voluntarily retirement is confirmed in absolute terms as in Dinesh Chandra Sangma's case ( AIR 1978 SC 17 ) by the relevant rules and there is no provision in Rule to withhold permission in certain contingencies the voluntary retirement comes into effect automatically on the expiry of the period specific in the notice. If, however, as in B.J. Shelat's case ( AIR 1978 SC 1109 ) and as in the concerned authority is empowered to withhold permission to retire if certain conditions exist, viz. in case the employee is under suspension or in case a departmental enquiry is pending or is contemplated, the mere Pendency of the suspension or departmental enquiry or its contemplation does not result in a notice for voluntary retirement not coming into effect on expiry of the period specified. What is further needed is that the concerned authority must pass a positive order withholding permission to retire and must also communicate the same to the employee as stated in B.J. Shelat's case and in Sayed Muzaffar Mir's case before expiry of the notice period. Consequently, there is no requirement of an order of acceptance of the notice to be communicated to the employee nor can it be said that non communication of acceptance should be treated as amounting to withholding of permission.” 11 In Tek Chand -Vs- Delhi Ram, AIR 2001 SC 905 , after referring to above said decision the Supreme Court held at para 35: “35.In our view, this judgment fully supports the contention urgent on behalf of the appellant in this regard. In this judgment, it is observed that there are three categories of rules relating to seeking of voluntary retirement after notice. In first category, voluntary retirement automatically comes into force on expiry of notice period. In second category also, retirement comes into fore unless an order is passed during notice period withholding permission to retire and in third category voluntary retirement does not come into force unless permission to this effect is granted by the competent authority. In such a case, refusal of permission can be communicated even after the expiry of the notice period. It all depends upon the relevant rules. In the case decided, the relevant rule required acceptance of notice by appointing authority and proviso to the rule further laid down that retirement shall come into force automatically if appointing authority did not refuse permission during the notice period. Refusal was not communicated to the respondent during the notice period and the Court held that voluntary retirement came into force on expiry of the notice period and subsequent order conveyed to him that he could be deemed to have voluntary retired had no effect. The present case is almost identical to the one decided by this court in the aforesaid decision.” 15. In the present case, since the said application of the petitioner dated 18.7.2005 was not filed in accordance with the relevant Rules, since the said application was not apparently treated as a valid application by the appointing authority by directing the petitioner through his Head of Department to re-submit an application by giving 3 months' notice, since the petitioner continued to serve in the same capacity even after the expiry of the date fixed by him as the date for voluntary retirement without filing any other application and since the petitioner was having legitimate expectation that the matter relating to voluntary retirement 12 was already closed, there is no basis for concluding that the petitioner must be deemed to have retired voluntarily w.e.f. the date fixed by himself. In view of the subsequent developments, the petitioner was no longer having his volition or intention at the relevant time to retire from service voluntarily w.e.f. 31.7.05. In view of the subsequent developments, the petitioner was no longer having his volition or intention at the relevant time to retire from service voluntarily w.e.f. 31.7.05. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, various decisions such as Paban Kr.Bordoloi -Vs- State of Assam & Ors.1996 2 GLT 161, Dinesh Chandra Sangma -Vs- State of Assam and Ors, AIR 1978 SC 17 and Girindra Nath Gogoi -Vs- Oil India Ltd. & Ors. 2002(3) GLT 597 cited on behalf of the respondents are not of much help to their case inasmuch as they are not applicable in the present case. 16. One more consideration is even assuming that the appointing authority was having power to fix a date w.e.f. which the petitioner was to make voluntary retirement, ignoring the date fixed by the petitioner himself in the said application dated 18.7.05, there is no appreciable reason as to why the petitioner was not allowed to withdraw his said application to retire voluntarily. It is the case of the petitioner that even though the said application dated 18.7.05 was not valid and subsisting, he submitted another application to the Chief Engineer on 10.10.05 formally withdrawing the said application dated 18.7.05. In this connection, according to the respondents, the said application dated 10.10.05 for withdrawal of the application dated 18.7.05 was filed to the office of the respondent No. 2 on 12.10.05 and the same was received by the Dy. Secretary (PHE), Govt. of Manipur on 14.10.05 and put up the matter to the Commissioner(PHE), Govt. of Manipur only on 19.10.05. Further, according to the respondents, since the Govt. had already accepted the petitioner's request for 13 voluntary retirement on 7.10.05, his application dated 10.10.05 for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement was not accepted. No explanation is given as to how and why the application received by the Dy. Secretary(PHE), Govt. of Manipur on 14.10.05 was put up to the Commissioner(PHE) only on 19.10.05 instead of, having regards to the urgency involved in the matter, putting it up on 14.10.05 itself. Since the appointing authority fixed 17.10.2005(A.N) as the date for taking effect of the voluntary retirement of the petitioner, the said date 17.10.05 should have been taken as the intended date of the petitioner's retirement and as such the concerned authority should have considered the said application dated 10.10.05, which was received by the office of the Dy. Since the appointing authority fixed 17.10.2005(A.N) as the date for taking effect of the voluntary retirement of the petitioner, the said date 17.10.05 should have been taken as the intended date of the petitioner's retirement and as such the concerned authority should have considered the said application dated 10.10.05, which was received by the office of the Dy. Secretary (PHE), Govt. of Manipur on 14.10.05 before the said intended date of the petitioner's retirement, properly. As per the relevant rules, i.e. the Rule 48(2) of the C.C.S(Pension)Rules and F.R.56 K(2), the petitioner was not precluded from withdrawing his said election for voluntary retirement within the intended date of his retirement with the specific approval of the appointing authority. 17. The appointing authority, who was having statutory power of approving the said withdrawal should have acted reasonably and rationally. In the said application dated 10.10.05 for withdrawal of the application dated 18.7.05 for voluntary retirement, the petitioner clearly stated to the effect that on further consultation with his family members, he decided to withdraw the said application. In his pleadings, the petitioner clearly states that under pressure coming from various sources, under severe mental depression and without proper application of his mind, he submitted the said application dated 18.7.05 and that on the advice of his well wishers, his family members and in order 14 to avoid any further complication, he submitted the said withdrawal application dated 10.10.05. The reasons put forward by the petitioner for filing the said withdrawal application are quite understandable and they cannot be treated as unreasonable reason. From the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit, it is ascertained that without examining the question if approval was to be given or not to the said withdrawal application on the basis of the reasons given therein, the respondent No. 1 ignored the withdrawal on the ground of the same having been submitted after issuance of the acceptance order dated 7.10.05. 18. In Bala Gupta -Vs- Union of India, 1987(Supp) SCC 228, the Supreme Court held to the effect that notice of voluntary retirement could be withdrawal at any time before the retirement became effective notwithstanding any Rules providing for obtaining of specific approval of the concerned authority as condition precedent to withdrawal of the notice. The decision was followed in J.N. Srivastava -Vs-Union of India & Another, AIR 1988(IX) SCC 559. The decision was followed in J.N. Srivastava -Vs-Union of India & Another, AIR 1988(IX) SCC 559. In Shambhu Murari Sinha -Vs- Project and Development India (2000) 5 SCC 61 and Bank of India -Vs- O.P. Swarnakar, 2003(2) SCC 721 , Supreme Court held to the effect that an employee could withdraw his application for voluntary retirement before the effective date. The effective date would necessarily be the date on which the retirement was to take effect. 19. In the light of the above decisions, the concerned appointing authority ought to have considered the withdrawal application of the petitioner dated 10.10.05 filed before 17.10.05 which was filed before the date fixed for 15 coming into effect of the retirement properly. It was not legal on the part of the respondents not to consider the withdrawal application on the ground of the same having submitted after issuance of the acceptance order dated 7.10.05. The learned counsel appearing on behalf for the respondents cites the decision of the Supreme Court in P. Lal -Vs-Union of India and Ors. (2002)3 SCC 393 and submits that the moment the authority accepted notice of voluntary retirement, the retirement became effective and as such there was no room for consideration of the withdrawal application dated 10.10.05 submitted after issuance of the acceptance order dated 7.10.05. The facts and circumstances of the said case before the Supreme Court as well as the relevant rules involved in the said case are not similar to the facts and circumstances of the case before this Court as well as the relevant rules involved in this case. 20. For the reasons given above and having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the discussions made above, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 7.10.2005 is not sustainable in the eye of law. The subsequent developments mentioned in the counter affidavit of the respondents such as issuance of the order on 13.10.05 allowing one Shri Th.Baite, Assistant Engineer to hold charge of E.E., Churachandpur Division, PHED in addition to his normal duty and requisition of Integrity Certificate of the petitioner from the Secretary (Vigilance) and no Demand Certificate etc. from other departments will not warrant validation of the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed. from other departments will not warrant validation of the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed. The respondents are hereby directed to treat the petitioner to be in service till the date of his superannuation. The respondents will have to 16 make good to the petitioner all monetary benefits by treating him to have been continuously working as per the present order within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. 21. With this, this writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.