Judgment : The petitioner had initially filed O.A. No.1881 of 2004 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of the first respondent herein and the same has been transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as W. P. No. 36679 of 2005. 2. The petitioner had joined the service of the first respondent department in the year 1986. He had submitted the resignation on 4.12.2000 stating that with effect from 5.12.2000, he resigned his post as Storekeeper on the basis of his family circumstances. Till February 2002, no orders were passed either accepting his resignation or rejecting the same. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 24.4.2002 to that effect. Since no order has been passed on the representation of the petitioner, he withdrew his resignation with a request to permit, him to join duty. Again, since no order has been passed, a similar representation has been submitted on 15.6.2002. Subsequent to this, by order dated 1.1.2004 which finds place at page No. 19 of the original application, the first respondent had passed an order accepting the resignation of the petitioner with effect from 5.12.2000 and also relieving the petitioner from duty. Challenging the above order, the petitioner filed the above O.A./Writ Petition. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the amendment issued to Rule 41 -A of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, a Government Servant may withdraw the resignation before it is accepted. In the case of the petitioner, though the petitioner had submitted the resignation letter on 4.12.2000, the same was accepted only on 1.1.2004, but prior to two years to this order i.e. on 25.4.2002 and 15.6.2002 the petitioner had submitted the representation withdrawing the resignation and hence the petitioner had withdrawn his resignation before it was accepted and as such the impugned order is prima facie illegal. 4. The counsel for the respondent has contended that based on his resignation, the disciplinary proceedings which has to be initiated in pursuance of the memo dated 31.7.2000 and 10.11.2000 were dropped and as such the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted. 5. I have considered the submissions. Admittedly, the petitioner has submitted his resignation on 4.12.2000 and had withdrawn the same on 24.5.2002 and also a remainder to this effect was also sent on 15.6.2002. 5. I have considered the submissions. Admittedly, the petitioner has submitted his resignation on 4.12.2000 and had withdrawn the same on 24.5.2002 and also a remainder to this effect was also sent on 15.6.2002. Admittedly, the first respondent has passed an order accepting the resignation only on 1.1.2004. As per the amendment issued to Rule 41-A (b), the Government Servant may withdraw his resignation before its acceptance. In this case, the resignation was submitted on 4.12.2000 which was accepted on 1.1.2004. Admittedly, the petitioner had withdrawn the same on 24.5.2002. It is not the case of the respondent department that no such representation withdrawing the resignation has been received by the department. Hence since the petitioner has withdrawn the resignation prior to the acceptance of the same, the passing of this impugned order, is prima facie contrary to 41-A(b). That apart, in 41-A(c) a deeming provision has been given by which if no order has been passed, the resignation is deemed to have been accepted on the expiry of the period of notice. As per this provision, if no order has been passed by the department, after 15.12.2000, by virtue of the deeming provision 41-A(c), the resignation of the petitioner is deemed to have been accepted and as such he cannot claim any relief. In this case, admittedly by order dated 1.1.2004, the department has passed an order admitting his resignation, which is valid or not is the issue. The issue in this writ petition is that a provision has been given in 41-A(b) enabling the Government Servant to withdraw the resignation submitted before the acceptance of the same. I am of the opinion that, passing of the order after the withdrawal of the said resignation by the Government Servant, is not valid in view of provision 41-A(b). That apart, if the order has been passed before the representation of the petitioner dated 24.5.2002, negativing the claim of the petitioner to withdraw the resignation letter submitted by him, the matter will stand in a different footing, but passing the order after a lapse of 4 years, after getting the withdrawal of the resignation is in my opinion, contrary to the provisions and prima facie illegal. Hence the same is set aside and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to join duty, but the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit for the period from 4.12.2000 to 24.5.2002. Hence the same is set aside and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to join duty, but the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit for the period from 4.12.2000 to 24.5.2002. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.