JUDGMENT Cyriac Joseph, C.J. (Oral): The appellant was the respondent in Writ Petition No. 30399 of 2003 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The respondent herein was the petitioner in the writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner was an employee of the Karnataka Housing Board (appellant herein). While he was working as Superintendent in the Finance Controller's Section, the petitioner submitted an application dated 23-12-1999 seeking permission to voluntarily retire from service under Rule 285(1)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958, which are admittedly applicable to the employees of the Karnataka Housing Board. The petitioner's application was allowed by the appellant as per Annexure-B, order dated 6-4-2000 which stated as follows.- "Hence, the representation of Sri R. Satyanarayana, Superintendent for voluntary retirement has been accepted with effect from the afternoon of 23-4-2000 under Rule 285(1)(b) and Rule 285(1 )(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules". 3. Thereafter the appellant issued Annexure-C, order dated 17-8-2000 partially modifying Annexure-B, order dated 6-4-2000. As per Annexure-C order, the petitioner was permitted to take voluntary retirement as per Rule 285(1)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Except deleting Rule 285(1)(b) from Annexure-B order, there was no change in Annexure-C order. Thus, the petitioner stood voluntarily retired from service under Rule 285(1)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, with effect from 23-4-2000. 4. Even though the petitioner was permitted to retire voluntarily from service under Rule 285(1)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, he was not given the benefit of weightage contemplated under Rule 285(2)(v). According to Rule 285(2)(v) while granting the retiring pension/gratuity to a Government servant retiring under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, weightage upto 5 years shall be given as addition to the qualifying service actually rendered by him. However, the grant of such weightage shall be subject to the condition that the total qualifying service after allowing the weightage shall not in any case exceed the qualifying service which the Government servant would have had if he had retired on attaining the age of superannuation. At the time of voluntarily retiring from service, the petitioner had attained the age of 54 years 6 months and 7 days and had rendered 29 years of qualifying service. At the time of voluntarily retiring from service, the petitioner had attained the age of 54 years 6 months and 7 days and had rendered 29 years of qualifying service. Since the age of superannuation is 58 years and since the petitioner was to retire from service on superannuation on 31-7-2003, he was entitled to the weightage of three years and 7 months added to his actual qualifying service in terms of Rule 285(2)(v) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Since the said benefit was denied to him by the appellant, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 26-7-2002 requesting that the said benefit may be extended to him. But his representation dated 26-7-2002 was rejected by the appellant as per Annexure-D order. In Annexure-D order, the appellant stated that there was no scope to reconsider his representation for taking voluntary retirement under Rule 285(1)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Even though the petitioner had not asked for reconsideration of his representation for voluntary retirement, it is strange that in Annexure-D the appellant stated that there was no scope for reconsidering the said representation. At the same time, no reason is stated in Annexure-D for denying him the benefit of weightage under Rule 285(2)(v) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. 5. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed the writ petition praying for quashing Annexure-D, order dated 10-2-2003 of the appellant. In support of his claim for the benefit of weightage under Rule 285(2)(v), the petitioner relied on Annexure-E, Official Memorandum dated 14-12-1990 issued by the Government of Karnataka. The appellant resisted the claim in the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was permitted to retire from service voluntarily under Rule 285(1)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules due to a mistake and that he ought to have been permitted to retire from service voluntarily under Rule 285(1)(b) and therefore, the appellant should be permitted to rectify the mistake. It was also contended by the appellant that if the petitioner was allowed to retire from service voluntarily under Rule 285(1)(b), he would not be entitled to the benefit of weightage mentioned in Rule 285(2)(v). It was pointed out by the appellant that the benefit under Rule 285(2)(v) is available only to those who retire from service voluntarily under Rule 28S(1)(a). 6. It was pointed out by the appellant that the benefit under Rule 285(2)(v) is available only to those who retire from service voluntarily under Rule 28S(1)(a). 6. Having considered the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed Annexure-D and directed the respondent in the writ petition (appellant herein) to revise the pensionary benefits of the petitioner in terms of the rules in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal has been filed on behalf of the Karnataka Housing Board. 7. It is not disputed that in his application for voluntary retirement the petitioner had specifically stated that he wanted to take voluntary retirement under Rule 285(1)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. There was no failure on his part to specify the specific rule and nothing was left ambiguous. However, in Annexure-B, order dated 6-4-2000, the appellant stated that the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement was accepted under Rule 285(1)(b) and Rule 285(1)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Realising the above mistake, the appellant issued Annexure-C, order dated 17-8-2000 rectifying the mistake in Annexure-B and reiterating that the petitioner was permitted to take voluntary retirement under Rule 285(1)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Hence, there was no failure on the part of the appellant to specify the specific rule under which the petitioner was permitted to take voluntary retirement and there was no ambiguity left as far as the provision is concerned. It is also not disputed that at any time till today, the appellant has not issued any subsequent order modifying or cancelling Annexure-C, order dated 17-8-2000. Hence, the Court has to proceed on the basis that the petitioner stood voluntarily retired from service with effect from 23-4-2000 under Rule 285(l)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. 8. It is not disputed by the appellant that a person who retires under Rule 285(l)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules is entitled to the benefit of weight age mentioned in Rule 285(2)(v) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Hence, there cannot be any doubt that the respondent/petitioner was entitled to the benefit of weight age mentioned under Rule 285(2)(v) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. 9. Hence, there cannot be any doubt that the respondent/petitioner was entitled to the benefit of weight age mentioned under Rule 285(2)(v) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. 9. In our view, the reliance placed by the writ petitioner on Annexure-E, Official Memorandum was unnecessary.' Annexure-E, Official Memorandum was issued in the light of the representation made by the Government servants, who at the time of seeking voluntary retirement have not only completed 20 years of actual qualifying service but also attained the age of 50 years, against the denial of the benefit of weightage under Rule 285(2)(v) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules on the ground that they had not mentioned in the application that they were seeking voluntary retirement under Rule 285(1)(a) or that the Appointing Authority omitted to specifically mention Rule 285(l)(a) in the order granting permission to voluntarily retire from service. After considering the representation of such employees, the Government issued the instructions contained in Annexure-E, Official Memorandum. According to the said instructions, while issuing orders permitting a Government servant to retire voluntarily under Rule 285 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, all Appointing Authorities should ensure that it is specifically and invariably stipulated that he is permitted to retire voluntarily under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 285 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. It is also stated that in the absence of such stipulation the Audit Officer would proceed as per the presumptions mentioned in paragraph 3(2) of the said Official Memorandum. As per paragraph 3(2)(iii) of Annexure-E, if the Government servant has completed 20 years of qualifying service (reduced to 15 years with effect from 5-7-1990) and attained the age of 50 years, it has to be presumed that he has been permitted to retire voluntarily under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 285. In the present case, the writ petitioner had specifically stated in his application that he was seeking voluntary retirement under Rule 285(1)(a) and the Appointing Authority, while granting permission to take voluntary retirement to the petitioner, had specifically stated that he was permitted to take voluntary retirement under Rule 285(1)(a). In such circumstances, the presumptions mentioned in Annexure-E, Official Memorandum have no application to the present case and the reliance placed by the writ petitioner on Annexure-E, Official Memorandum was quite unnecessary. 10. In such circumstances, the presumptions mentioned in Annexure-E, Official Memorandum have no application to the present case and the reliance placed by the writ petitioner on Annexure-E, Official Memorandum was quite unnecessary. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that when an employee is eligible to take voluntary retirement under Rule 285(1)(b) on the basis that he has attained the age of 50 years, he cannot seek voluntary retirement under Rule 285(1)(a) on the ground that he was completed the qualifying service of not less than 15 years. But learned Counsel for the respondent contended that if an employee has completed 15 years of qualifying service and has also attained the age of 50 years and is eligible to take voluntary retirement both under Rule 285(1)(a) and under Rule 285(1)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, he is entitled to seek voluntary retirement either under clause (a) or under clause (b) of Rule 285(1) and the Appointing Authority is competent to grant such a request for voluntary retirement. 11. Having regard to the statutory provisions mentioned above and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that there is no prohibition in Rule 285 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, which prevents an employee from seeking voluntary retirement under Rule 285(1)(a) of the said Rules even if he is eligible to seek voluntary retirement under Rule 285(1)(b) also. The contention of learned Counsel for the respondent is more logical and is in tune with the rationale behind the earlier mentioned presumption under paragraph 3(2)(iii) of Annexure-E. Therefore, we hold that if an employee has completed 15 years of qualifying service and has also attained the age of 50 years and is eligible to take voluntary retirement both under Rule 285(1)(a) and under Rule 285(1)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, he is entitled to seek voluntary retirement either under clause (a) or under clause (b) of Rule 285(1) and the Appointing Authority is competent to grant such a request for voluntary retirement. Hence, the petitioner was eligible to voluntarily retire from service under Rule 285(l)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules and on such retirement he was entitled to the benefit of weight age mentioned in Rule 285(2)(v) of the said Rules. 12. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal and the writ appeal is dismissed. 12. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal and the writ appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is given a further period of four weeks from today to comply with the direction in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.