Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 551 (ORI)

Gokul Chandra Kar v. Chief General Manager

2006-07-21

A.K.SAMANTARAY, B.P.DAS

body2006
JUDGMENT A. K. SAMANTARAY, J. : In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who was an employee of the State Bank of India has called in question the order dated 31.10.2000 of Chief Manager, State Bank of India, IDCO Tower, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.2) accepting his application for voluntary retirement from the Bank service with effect from 31st October 2000 (Annexure-5). He has also made a prayer to direct the opposite parties to allow him to continue as against his former post with all service benefits including arrear as well as current salary and to pay the same to him within a rea¬sonable time. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition runs as follows :- The petitioner joined the Bank service on 13.7.1966 and during his 35 years of service there was no adverse remark as against him and on the other hand his performance was quite satisfactory. Taking the performance, integrity and devotion of the petitioner into consideration the management was pleased to extend his service up to 24.10.2000 vide letter No.ZO (GEN)/PER/16/2405 dated 6.12.1996 in terms of Rule 19(1) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). In terms of the statutory provisions, the petitioner made necessary application on 7.6.2000 for grant of voluntary retirement on medical ground and to allow him to take voluntary retirement from service with effect from 31.10.2000 (Annexure-1). Opposite party No.2 after receipt of his applica¬tion for voluntary retirement informed him on 27.6.2000 that they had already received the application of the petitioner requesting for voluntary retirement from the Bank service and it was noted in the said communication to him that his application was being forwarded to the competent authority through proper channel for consideration and in the meanwhile unless and until approval of the competent authority was communicated to him he would continue to be in Bank service and report for duty as usual and that he would not be deemed to have retired from the service of the Bank (Annexure-2). After completion of more than four months from the date of making application for voluntary retirement, as there was no response from the opposite parties either accepting or refus¬ing to accept the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement, the petitioner subsequently changed his mind and decided to withdraw the voluntary retirement application and accordingly on 28.10.2000 the petitioner made necessary applica¬tion to the Chief General Manager (O.P. No.1) for withdrawal of his voluntary retirement application dated 7.6.2000. He also requested in the said withdrawal letter to the authority to consider his case for further extension of his service beyond 58 years of age and the said application was duly acknowledged by the O.P. No.1 on 28.10.2000 (Annexure-3). Though the application of the petitioner for withdrawal of his earlier application was received by the O.P. No.1 on the very same day, i.e., 28.10.2000 at about 4 P.M., the petitioner was referred to the medical board for examination of his present status of health. Thereafter, on 31.10.2000 the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 31.10.2000 of the O.P. No.1 that the appropriate authority had accepted the application of the petitioner for voluntary retire¬ment from the Bank service with effect from 31.10.2000 (Annexure-5). Ventilating his grievance the petitioner has averred in the writ petition that though he moved an application on 7.6.2000 for voluntary retirement as per the usual procedure of the Bank and not on the basis of any scheme for such retirement and as the said application was not considered by the opposite parties till 31.10.2000, prior to receipt of communication dated 31.10.2000 retiring him from the Bank service, the petitioner on 28.10.2000 withdrew his application dated 7.6.2000. It is specifically stated that as per Rule 19(1) read with Circular No.CDO/PER and HRD/29/98 dated 9.6.1998 an officer retires from service of the Bank on attaining the age of 60 years or upon the completion of 30 years of service or 30 years pensionable service, if he is a member of Pension Fund, whichever occurs first and from the said rule it is absolutely clear that if extension of its continuation in service shall be approved automatically in all cases, it is not required for an employee to make an application for extension and it is the duty of the Bank to consider the performance of an officer and upon such consideration if it is found that the concerned officer has not been up to expected level, an officer may at the discretion of the Executive Committee of the Central Board to be retired from the Bank service after he attains 50 years of age or has completed 25 years of service or 25 years of pensionable service by giving him three months’ notice in writing or pay in lieu thereof. He has averred that in his case extension had been granted by the Bank. But after he had attained 50 years of age further extension was not subsequently considered by the Executive Committee of the Central Board and no notice in writing was given to him nor salary was paid in lieu thereof. In the writ petition he has alleged infraction of rules and regulations con¬trolling the service in his case and he has stated that his case for extension of service has not been considered by the authority so as to allow him to serve the bank up to 60 years. It is fur¬ther stated that although the order of accepting his voluntary retirement application was accepted by the opposite parties with effect from 31st October, 2000, but he has not been relieved from the service and was prevented from continuing and enjoying the status of a Bank officer with effect from 31.10.2000. It is fur¬ther stated that although the order of accepting his voluntary retirement application was accepted by the opposite parties with effect from 31st October, 2000, but he has not been relieved from the service and was prevented from continuing and enjoying the status of a Bank officer with effect from 31.10.2000. It is pleaded in the writ petition that it is the well-settled law that even if voluntary retirement application was moved by an employee and gets accepted by the authority within the time fixed, before the date of retirement is reached the employee has every right to withdraw the proposal for voluntary retirement and it is also the settled principle of law that in absence of legal, contractual or Constitutional bar a prospective voluntary retirement can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective and it becomes effective only when it operates to terminate the employment or the office tenure of the employee. Lastly, the petitioner has stated that by such arbitrary action of the authorities retiring him with effect from 31.10.2000 the petitioner has sustained heavy financial loss in regard to his salary,other allowances and ex gratia payment and had his representation dated 28.10.2000 been considered properly by the competent and appropriate authority he would have continued in service and availed the facility of voluntary retirement under the Bank’s voluntary retirement scheme which was implemented in December, 2000 and would have been enti¬tled to Rs.5.00 lakhs as ex gratia. Apart from that, he has stated about his retention of Bank’s hired residential accommoda¬tion and other financial entitlements and has ultimately prayed for quashment of Annexure-5. 3. The opposite parties have filed counter affidavit challenging the averments in the writ petition and have stated that the petitioner had joined the Bank service on 13.7.1966 and at the relevant time he was the Manager in the IDCO Tower Branch of State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar. While functioning as such petitioner submitted an application on 7.6.2000 vide Annexure-1 for his voluntary retirement from the Bank service with effect from 31.10.2000 on medical ground. While functioning as such petitioner submitted an application on 7.6.2000 vide Annexure-1 for his voluntary retirement from the Bank service with effect from 31.10.2000 on medical ground. His application is covered by the Fourth Proviso to Rule 19(1) of the Rules and the said provi¬so envisages that “provided further that an officer who has completed 20 years service or 20 years pensionable service, as the case may be, may be permitted by the competent authority to retire from the Bank’s service subject to his giving three months notice in writing or pay in lieu thereof unless this requirement is wholly or partly waived by it.” 4. It is stated that the rules are statutory in nature having been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the SBI Act, 1955. The petitioner, according to the opposite parties, had rendered 34 years of service in the Bank and as per the Fourth Proviso to Rule 19(1) of the Rules he was entitled to seek voluntary retirement as he had already completed 20 years of service, by giving three months notice in writing. The petitioner since submitted his application for voluntary retirement on 7.6.2000 as per rules the notice period of three months expired on 7.9.2000. Admittedly, petitioner submitted the application on 28.10.2000 for withdrawal of his notice for voluntary retirement. The opposite parties have refut¬ed the assertion of the petitioner that the application for voluntary retirement having been withdrawn before its acceptance the competent authority committed gross error of law in accepting the application for voluntary retirement by order dated 31.10.2000 (Annexure-5). It is stated that the application for voluntary retirement was considered by the competent authority and the same was accepted on 21.9.2000 and was approved by the Chief General Manager on 23.9.2000 and as such the contention of the petitioner that his application for withdrawal was submitted before acceptance of his voluntary retirement offer is not at all sustainable. It is stated that the application for voluntary retirement was considered by the competent authority and the same was accepted on 21.9.2000 and was approved by the Chief General Manager on 23.9.2000 and as such the contention of the petitioner that his application for withdrawal was submitted before acceptance of his voluntary retirement offer is not at all sustainable. The opposite parties have filed copies of the pro¬posal and acceptance of voluntary retirement as per Annexures- A and B. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that the notice period as required by rules is three months and the peti¬tioner submitted his application for voluntary retirement on 7.6.2000 and in the absence of refusal of permission within three months period, the voluntary retirement became effective on the expiry of the said three months period on 7.9.2000. It is further stated that the petitioner received the communication of retire¬ment and he also received the terminal benefit of gratuity in token of acknowledgement of such retirement and after that he cannot reiterate and attempt to impeach his voluntary retirement, which he has already accepted. It is further stated by the oppo¬site parties that the cause of action arose on 31.10.2000 when the petitioner was communicated about acceptance of his voluntary retirement from the Bank service and there is absolutely no justification nor the petitioner has placed any material to show as to why he waited for more than one and a half years for filing the present writ petition and as such the writ petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches. It is also averred that the so-called withdrawal letter dated 28.10.2000 was a conditional communication and since the competent authority had taken a decision to retire the petitioner with effect from 31.10.2000 the question of his extension of service or withdrawal of earlier application for voluntary retirement are of no conse¬quence and as such the writ petition deserves dismissal. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties the sole question that emerges for consideration is as to whether the opposite parties were competent to retire the petitioner from service on 31.10.2000 accepting his application for voluntary retirement on health ground even after his withdrawal of the same on 28.10.2000, i.e., before the jural relationship between the petitioner and the opposite parties ceased. 6. 6. For better appreciation to effectively answer the aforementioned question it would be pertinent to quote the application of the petitioner for his voluntary retirement from the Bank Service dated 7.6.2000 (Annexure-1) which is quoted below :- “With due deference and all humility, I beg to lay before you the following few lines for your kind perusal and sympathetic consideration : (i). Sir, I have joined the Bank service on 13.07.1966. I will be completing 34 years 03 months and 11 days of service on the 24th Oct. 2000 i.e. the date upto which EXTENSION OF SERVICE has been granted to me by the Appropriate Authority. I have spared no pains to satisfy my superior with the faithful discharge of my duties with utmost sincerity, integrity, devotion and diligence with an unblemish service record. I have been granted extension of service up to 24.10.2000 when I will be completing 58 years of age in terms of Bhubaneswar Zonal Office letter No.ZO(GEN)/PER/16/2405 dt.06.12.1996. (ii). Sir, I am suffering from coronary Artery Disease since Nov-1992 followed by two heart attacks on 19.11.1992 and 05.03.1998 during my incumbency at Dhenkanal and Phulbani Branches. Medical Reports i.e., ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY, TREADMILL TRESS TEST REPORT, CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY and CARDIAC CATHETERIZATION etc., are en¬closed. (iii). At this old age of mine, I am unable to take up normal activities of my life mainly due to my illness. Most frequently, I am experiencing severe chest pains, breathlessness and restlessness. Slightest amount of stress and tension serves to aggravate my Heart Problem. As a result my physical problem of health has not only accentuated but multiplied and intensified in magnitude and gravity. I am very much afraid that I may not be in a position to deliver goods up to the expectations of my superiors in this present state of health. iv). In the above circumstances,I earnestly request your kindself to allow me to take VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT from service on 31.10.2000 on medical grounds as a very special case i.e. after expiry of he period of extension already granted to me (Bhubanes¬war Zonal Office Letter No.ZO (GEN)/PER/16/2405, DT.06.12.1996). v). Further, your kind consideration for compassionate appoint¬ment on medical grounds to my son purely on merits will be a tre¬mendous source of consolation and solace to me in view of penuri¬ous condition of my family. Hoping to be favoured with your kind decision.” 7. v). Further, your kind consideration for compassionate appoint¬ment on medical grounds to my son purely on merits will be a tre¬mendous source of consolation and solace to me in view of penuri¬ous condition of my family. Hoping to be favoured with your kind decision.” 7. From the contents of the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement it is manifest that he was going to complete 34 years, 3 months and 11 days of service as on 24.10.2000 and he had been granted extension of service up to that date, i.e., 24.10.2000 and on that date he would be complet¬ing 58 years of age and his service was extended by the appropri¬ate authority which was communicated to him vide Bhubaneswar Zonal office letter No. ZO (GEN)/PER/16/2405 dated 6.12.1996. It is further clear from his application that he was suffering from Coronary Artery Disease since November, 1992 followed by two heart attacks on 19.11.1992 and 5.3.1998 during his incumbency at Dhenkanal and Phulbani branches of the Bank and he had also enclosed the medical reports to that effect. He has also stated in the writ petition that at the old age he was unable to take up normal activities of his life mainly due to illness and was experiencing severe chest-pain breathlessness and restlessness which was getting aggravated by slightest amount of stress and tension for which he was not in a position to deliver good up to expectation of his superior. He had fervently prayed and request¬ed the authority to allow him to take voluntary retirement from service on 31.10.2000 on medical ground as a special case, i.e., after expiry of the period of extension already granted to him and he further prayed for consideration for providing compassion¬ate appointment to his son. 8. From the aforesaid fact circumstances which were admit¬tedly put forth by the petitioner before the appropriate authori¬ty, we find that the petitioner was continuing in service after getting extension till completion of the age of 58 years which he was going to complete on 24.10.2000 and was due to retire on 31.10.2000 as per rules. 8. From the aforesaid fact circumstances which were admit¬tedly put forth by the petitioner before the appropriate authori¬ty, we find that the petitioner was continuing in service after getting extension till completion of the age of 58 years which he was going to complete on 24.10.2000 and was due to retire on 31.10.2000 as per rules. The said application of the petitioner as per Annexure-1 was received by the Chief General Manager (O.P. No.1), and it was communicated to him vide Annexure-2 that his application was being forwarded to the competent authority through proper channel for consideration and in the meanwhile unless and until approval of the competent authorities was commu¬nicated to him he would continue to be in Bank’s service and report for duty as usual and till then he would not be deemed to have retired from service of the Bank. From Annexure-A, the note forwarded for approval of the proposal for voluntary retire¬ment of the petitioner with effect from 31.10.2000, we find that the Chief General Manager has dealt with the ground for accept¬ance of the proposal of the petitioner including the computation of the terminal benefits. From Annexure-B, we find that the proposal was approved by the appropriate authority on 21.9.2000 accepting the voluntary retirement proposal of the petitioner from the Bank service with effect from 31.10.2000 subject to completion of formalities for repayment of house loan, if any, as per instruction contained in the Bank’s circular dated 14.11.1996. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court since 1978, the petitioner was within his right to withdraw his option for voluntary retirement even after its acceptance, but before the actual date of release from the employment. In support of his contention he placed before us the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In a Constitution Bench decision in Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Mishra, AIR 1978 S.C. 694 : (1978) 2 SCC 301 in paragraph 51 where it has been held that the general prin¬ciple is that in absence of a legal, contractual or constitution¬al 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 resign or. He also cited a decision in Balaram Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 S.C. 2354 , where the principle laid down in Gopal Chandra Mishra (supra) was summarized as follows :- “A complete and effective act of resigning office is one which severs the link of resignor with his office and terminates its tenure.” In Balaram Gupta’s case the appellant employee offered to voluntarily retire from service with effect from 31st March, 1981 and, accordingly, sent a letter within the notice period. Howev¬er, he changed his mind and sent a letter on 31.1.1981 seeking to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement but the request was turned down by the concerned authority on the plea that the withdrawal of notice could only be with the specific approval of the authority. The Hon’ble Apex Court held “that the dissolu¬tion of the contract of employment would be brought only on the date indicated, i.e., 31.3.1981 and up to that date the appellant continued as government employee. He is at liberty to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement and for this purpose prior approv¬al is not required”. In another cited decision in J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 5171, the Hon’ble Apex Court also observed and held in the same line as follows :- “It is now well settled that even if the voluntary retirement notice is moved by an employee and gets accepted by the authority within the time fixed, before the date of retire¬ment is reached, the employee has locus-Poeniteniae to withdraw the proposal for voluntary retirement.” The learned counsel also cited the decision in Nand Keshwar Prasad v. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. and others, AIR 1999 SC 558 : (1998) 5 SCC 461 where the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that it is open to the employee concerned to withdraw letter of resignation before the date indicated in the notice of voluntary retirement. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court therein: “......it appears to us that the law is well settled by this Court in a number of decisions that unless controlled by condi¬tion of service or the statutory provision, the retirement mentioned in the letter of the resignation must take effect from the date mentioned therein and such date cannot be advanced by accepting the resignation from an earlier date when the concerned employee did not intend to retire from such earlier date”. In another decision in Power Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia, AIR (1997) 4 SCC 280 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows :- “It is now settled legal position that unless the employee is relieved of the duty after acceptance of the offer of voluntary retirement or resignation, jural relationship of the employee and the employer does not come to an end”. Similar view has also been expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Srikantha S.M. v. M/s. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd. J.T. 2005 (12) SC 465. 10. Lending assurance from the aforementioned settled principle of law, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, in the instant case, had offered vide Annex¬ure-1 to allow him to take voluntary retirement from service on 31.10.2000 on medical ground as a very special case and on 28.10.2000 he submitted his representation for withdrawing the earlier application for voluntary retirement and as such he was withdrawn the application for voluntary retirement before the effective date of retirement, i.e., 31.10.2000. Learned counsel argued vehemently that without considering his withdrawal appli¬cation he has been retired on 31.10.2000 vide Annexure-5 and as such the non-consideration of his withdrawal application and acceptance of his voluntary retirement application and retiring him from service on 31.10.2000 are against the settled principle of law laid down by the apex Court. 11. The learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand,taking us to Annexure-1, the application for voluntary retirement, urged that in the said application the petitioner has clearly mentioned that he was granted extension of service by the opposite parties up to 24.10.2000 when he was completing 58 years of age. In his representation for withdrawal of his voluntary retirement prayer (Annexure-3) he has also mentioned that after serving the Bank for more than 34 years and completing 58 years of age he had applied on 7.6.2000 for voluntary retirement with effect from 31.10.2000 on serving due notice to the Bank. In his representation for withdrawal of his voluntary retirement prayer (Annexure-3) he has also mentioned that after serving the Bank for more than 34 years and completing 58 years of age he had applied on 7.6.2000 for voluntary retirement with effect from 31.10.2000 on serving due notice to the Bank. In paragraph 2 of the said withdrawal communication (Annexure-3) he has mentioned that “incidentally as the extension of service granted to me by the Bank has expired on 24.10.2000 on completion of 58 years of age, I leave it to the Bank to decide whether to grant me further extension of service beyond 58 years of age or retire me from service with effect from service with effect from 31.10.2000 without granting further extension of service”. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly the petitioner was continuing in the service of the opposite parties after he was granted extension of his service up to the age of 58 which was expiring on 24.10.2000 and the said extension at the first stage was granted to him on his attaining 55 years of age as per the extension of service rules. The second stage of extension as per rules is granted on attaining 58 years of age for grant of exten¬sion/continuation up to 60 years of age being the age of retire¬ment. Taking us to the said Rule 9(1) he submitted that the rules specifically provide that “it shall not be construed that exten¬sion/continuation in service shall be approved automatically in all cases”. He argued further that the petitioner was granted extension of service at the first stage under Rule 19(1) of the Rules from 55 years to 58 years and when he was running 58 years of age, he himself filed application representing for voluntary retirement on health ground as he was unable to take up normal activities of life mainly due to illness of the severe nature. Learned counsel submitted that when the petitioner as per Annex¬ure-1 has volunteered to retire from the Bank service due to his serious health problem and furthermore when his extension of service was going to expire on 24.10.2000 the opposite parties processed this application for voluntary retirement and the same was accepted by the appropriate authority on 21.9.2000. 12. Learned counsel submitted that when the petitioner as per Annex¬ure-1 has volunteered to retire from the Bank service due to his serious health problem and furthermore when his extension of service was going to expire on 24.10.2000 the opposite parties processed this application for voluntary retirement and the same was accepted by the appropriate authority on 21.9.2000. 12. We have reproduced the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement (Annexure-1) in the body of the judgment and on a reading of the said annexure, we find that he was suf¬fering from Coronary Artery Disease since 1992 followed by two heart attacks on 19.11.1992 and 5.3.1998. According to his own revelation in the said Annexure-1, he was experiencing severe chest pain, breathlessness and restlessness and slightest amount of stress and tension aggravated his heart problem for which he was not in a position to deliver goods up to the expectation of his superior in that state of health. The learned counsel for the opposite parties took us to Rule 9.2 where the criteria for grant of extension of service or otherwise has been provided and in Rule 9.2(a) it is provided that an officer who performs well, is efficient, whose integrity is beyond doubt and who possesses good health may ordinarily be considered suitable for grant of exten¬sion of service. When the extension or continuation in service is not construed to be approved automatically in all cases, on the face of Annexure-1 which describes the state of health of the petitioner, the question of consideration of granting him second extension from the age of 58 to 60 years was out of question, especially when he had urged in the said voluntary retirement application and requested the authorities to be kind enough to allow him for voluntary retirement from service. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner completed 58 years on 24.10.2000 and as per explanation to Rule 19(3) the petitioner after acceptance of his voluntary retirement prayer retired on the last day of the month, i.e., 31.1.2000 in which month he completed the stipulated service or age of retirement. 13. Pursuing his point learned counsel for the opposite parties further submitted that the conduct of the petitioner subsequent to his retirement on 31.10.2000 cannot be lost sight of. 13. Pursuing his point learned counsel for the opposite parties further submitted that the conduct of the petitioner subsequent to his retirement on 31.10.2000 cannot be lost sight of. Admittedly, petitioner has received his gratuity amount which goes to show his willingness to retire from Bank service and after his retirement he has joined the membership of State Bank of India Retired Employees Medical Benefit Scheme by applying for the same on 16.11.2001 and depositing an amount of Rs.7,608/-, that is more than a year after his retirement. He has also been receiving his monthly pension after his retirement. The learned counsel also produced before us the file relating to voluntary retirement of the petitioner as per our direction and we have perused the communications between the petitioner and the oppo¬site parties and we have absolutely no hesitation to find that the petitioner has willingly accepted the voluntary retirement from Bank service and only due to differences between the oppo¬site parties and the petitioner regarding the settlement of the dues of the Bank which are to be deducted from terminal benefits of the petitioner dispute cropped later on. The petitioner raised dispute later on which has culminated in filing of this writ petition after more than one year eight months of his retirement. 14. We have carefully examined the factual position involved in the instant case and admittedly the petitioner sought voluntary retirement on the ground of his alarming health condition and not under any voluntary retirement scheme offered by the opposite parties so as to allure him to offer voluntary retirement from service to get sumptuous pecuniary benefits under such scheme. The petitioner had already put in more than 34 years of service with the opposite parties and was very much in know of the rules and regulations guiding the service condition. It is the admitted position that he was due to retire on completion of 58 years of age on 24.10.2000 and his date of retirement as per explanation to Rule 19(3) on 31.10.2000 on the end of the retire¬ment month. It is further an admitted position that at the first stage of extension of service he was granted three years exten¬sion at the age of 55 to retire on completion of 58 years of age. It is further an admitted position that at the first stage of extension of service he was granted three years exten¬sion at the age of 55 to retire on completion of 58 years of age. The rule relating to criteria for grant of extension of service or otherwise as has been provided in Rule 9.2(a) where it has been envisaged that extension or continuation in service is not construed to be approved automatically in all cases. On the face of Annexure-1, the application for voluntary retirement, where the petitioner has mentioned his prospective date of retirement as 31.10.2000 and the said application being processed and ulti¬mately accepted by the competent authority on 21.9.2000 permit¬ting him to retire from the said prospective date, i..e, 31.10.2000, there was absolutely no scope for the opposite par¬ties to consider his application for withdrawal of voluntary retirement offer which was submitted only two days before the said date of retirement. Apart from that, when the authorities did not consider his further extension in service from the age of 58 years to 60 years the withdrawal of voluntary retirement offer could not also have been considered otherwise. The settled legal position which the learned counsel for the petitioner very much relied on is that “even if the voluntary retirement notice is moved by an employee and gets accepted by the authority within the time fixed, before the date of retire¬ment is reached the employee has locus poenitentiae to withdraw the proposal for voluntary retirement”, in our considered view, has no application to the instant case for the aforementioned reasons. We have observed that the petitioner retired on 31.10.2000 after attaining the age of superannuation (completing the age of 58 years after first extension in service) and he accepted the gratuity amount, accepted the pension due, became a member of the State Bank of India Employees Medical Benefit Scheme by deposit¬ing the stipulated amount more than a year after such retirement and made application for retaining the Bank’s leased accommoda¬tion for four months after the retirement. All these conduct of the petitioner go to show that he has willingly accepted the retirement for which he had on his own volition made a prayer to the competent authority to accept his voluntary retirement offer. All these conduct of the petitioner go to show that he has willingly accepted the retirement for which he had on his own volition made a prayer to the competent authority to accept his voluntary retirement offer. Filing of the writ petition more than one year and eight months after accepting the voluntary retirement/retirement without any explanation for such latches tells upon the genuineness of his grievance. In view of our aforementioned observation, we find no merit in the writ petition and in the result we direct dismissal of the same. The interim order dated 18.6.2003 passed in Misc. Case No.2570 of 2003 stands vacated. However, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. B. P. DAS, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.