JUDGMENT : S. Panda, J. - The Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, challenges the relieve Order Dated 31st July, 2002 passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Orissa State Road Transport Corporation, Bhubaneswar, Opposite Party No. 2, violating the terms and conditions of the guidelines stipulated for implementation of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred as "the VRS") for the employees of public sector undertakings. 2. The facts, as narrated in the record, are as follows; The Petitioner was working as Accounts Clerk in the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation Head Office at Bhubaneswar. While continuing as such, he was put under suspension in the year 2001. Thereafter, on being reinstated on 29.5.2002, he joined on 11.6.2002. Pending enquiry, charges were framed on 21.2.2002 which was received by the Petitioner on 11.3.2002. 3. Since the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (in short, "OSRTC") was running in a financial stringency, by Order Dated 9.9.1998 Opposite Party No. 2 issued an office letter to its employees for seeking voluntary retirement under the model "Voluntary Retirement Scheme" vide Annexure-1. Said step was taken by the OSRTC pursuant to the decision of the Government of Orissa to call upon the public sector undertakings to identify the surplus personnel and offer them VRS in order to shape the State economy and the main object of the aforesaid Scheme was to achieve optimum man-power utilization to improve the overall skill and efficiency of the employees and to reduce the surplus and unproductive labour force. The Petitioner intended to apply for voluntary retirement and signed the VRS application form which was kept by him in his office table drawer. During the period of his suspension, some of the staff of the Bhubaheswar office took out the said form from the table drawer of the Petitioner and submitted the same in the Corporate Office on 15.9.2001. At that point of time, the Petitioner was at Berhampur Divisional Office as it was fixed as headquarters during his suspension period. The aforesaid fact came to the knowledge of the Petitioner on 11.1.2001 from one of his friend. The application of the Petitioner was under consideration of the authority. After coming to know about the said fact, the Petitioner immediately submitted a letter on 5.11.2001 to the Opposite Parties for withdrawal of the said application. The aforesaid fact came to the knowledge of the Petitioner on 11.1.2001 from one of his friend. The application of the Petitioner was under consideration of the authority. After coming to know about the said fact, the Petitioner immediately submitted a letter on 5.11.2001 to the Opposite Parties for withdrawal of the said application. It is further stated by the Petitioner that by that date (5.12.2001) he had not received any communication from the authority that his application was accepted. Therefore, again on 5.12.2001, he requested the General Manager, Administration, OSRTC, Opposite Party No. 4, and also submitted a representation on the same day protesting inclusion of his name in the list of VRS applicants. As Opposite Party No. 4 did not take any step, he sent the second reminder by Speed Post on 15.5.2002 to delete his name from the list of VRS applicants. 4. The Petitioner has further stated that he was not eligible to avail the benefits of voluntary retirement as he was under suspension and a departmental proceeding was pending against him. Since the authorities did not communicate anything to the Petitioner regarding acceptance of his VRS application within thirty days from the date of submission of such application, it was presumed that his application was rejected because Opposite Party No. 2 had communicated to different employees regarding acceptance of their VRS applications who have applied for, under the said Scheme. The Petitioner was reinstated and posted at Zonal Office, Jeypore in the district of Koraput on 11.6.2002. While continuing in the said station, all of a sudden, without assigning any reason, Opposite Party No. 2 relieved the Petitioner from service on 31.7.2002. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition on the ground that his VRS application should not be accepted by the authority as he was under suspension and a disciplinary proceeding is pending against him. It has been stated that the State Government issued a memorandum on 27.6.2002 clarifying certain points on VRS and regarding the point as to whether a management can forward the VRS application of an employee against whom disciplinary proceeding is pending, it was clarified therein that in such cases VRS should not be offered to an employee and the employee should not ordinarily be relieved unless finalization of connected disciplinary proceeding/criminal case is expected within four months. The departmental proceeding against the Petitioner was made final on 10.1.2003. Hence, according to the Petitioner, before finalization of the said departmental proceeding, the authority should not have accepted his VRS application and, therefore, issuance of the relieve order thereafter on 31.7.2002 is illegal. The Petitioner's post was also abolished till 9.10.2002. Further, he has stated that though he was relieved since July, 2002, and his VRS application was accepted by the authority, till date he has not received the benefit under the said Scheme which was to be paid to the employees within 60 days from the date of acceptance of voluntary retirement as per the Model "VRS Scheme". It is also stated that the impugned relieve order was passed ten months after the date of submission of the VRS application of the Petitioner without communicating to him anything regarding acceptance of the said application within 30 days, as stipulated in the Scheme and thus the same was violative of the principle of natural justice. 6. Opposite parties 2 and 4 have filed a joint counter-affidavit and Opposite Party No. 3 has filed a preliminary counter affidavit. In their counter affidavits, Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 4 have stated that the Petitioner had applied for availing VRS and the same was accepted within the specific period as mentioned in the guidelines. Hence, there was no scope for withdrawal of the said application at any point of time and the Petitioner's VRS dues amounting to Rs. 1,43,325/- have already been released and out of the same, Rs. 32,098/- has been deposited in the EPF on 31.3.2003. Since the Petitioner has received the dues, he cannot insist on deletion of his name from the list of VRS applicants and as per the VR Scheme, the Petitioner had to apply for withdrawal of the application within one month from the date of submission of the application, but since the Petitioner submitted his application for withdrawal beyond the period of one month, his prayer was rejected as the authorities have already calculated the financial implication and sent the same to Government requesting for release of the amount. The aforesaid VRS was a time-bound scheme and the offer was closed. The scheme is not in the service regulation but specifically under the funded Scheme. Hence, no 'master' and 'servant' relationship continued after expiry of 30 days from the date of submission of the application. The aforesaid VRS was a time-bound scheme and the offer was closed. The scheme is not in the service regulation but specifically under the funded Scheme. Hence, no 'master' and 'servant' relationship continued after expiry of 30 days from the date of submission of the application. They have denied the fact that the Petitioner had no knowledge about the filing of the application. In their counter affidavit, they have stated that the Scheme was prevalent from 1999 till 2002 and applications were submitted batchwise. The Petitioner submitted his application in the last batch of applicants to avail the VRS which was closed on 19.10.2001. Hence, they have not committed any wrong. As such, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this Writ Petition. 7. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 6.2.2008, the authority has not produced before this Court the entire record of the VRS applications and their acceptance but they have produced only the records of the application of the employees. Said record does not reveal as to when the Petitioner's application for VR has been accepted and whether the authority has communicated to the Petitioner regarding acceptance of his VR application. The Petitioner has specifically averred that though Opposite Parties have accepted his VR application, nothing was been communicated to him within 30 days as per the scheme and the post held by him was not abolished till October, 2002. 8. On the above background we have to examine, Whether the Opposite Parties have accepted the Petitioner's application within the stipulated time and communicated the same to the Petitioner and what relief the Petitioner is entitled to ? 9. Clauses 3.2 and 6.1 of the Scheme are extracted hereunder for better appreciation: MODEL VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE PSUs OF ORISSA xxx xxx xxx 3.2 The decision of the competent authority regarding the acceptance/rejection of the VR application shall be communicated to the concerned employees within thirty (30) days of submission of the application. xxx xxx xxx 6.1 Application for voluntary Retirement cannot be withdrawn after the sanction order has been communicated to the concerned employee. 6.2 The vacancy caused by voluntary Retirement shall stand abolished. 10. In view of the above provision, an employee has got an indefeasible right to withdraw the voluntary retirement application before its acceptance is communicated to him. xxx xxx xxx 6.1 Application for voluntary Retirement cannot be withdrawn after the sanction order has been communicated to the concerned employee. 6.2 The vacancy caused by voluntary Retirement shall stand abolished. 10. In view of the above provision, an employee has got an indefeasible right to withdraw the voluntary retirement application before its acceptance is communicated to him. In the instant case, the Opposite Parties did not communicate anything to the Petitioner within the stipulated period of thirty days either accepting or rejecting the Petitioner's offer for voluntary retirement. The Petitioner was also allowed to continue in his service even after expiry of the stipulated period of thirty days. Since the Petitioner did not receive any communication from the authority regarding acceptance or rejection of his VR application, he applied for withdrawal of the said application. The Opposite Parties could not exercise any right to refuse V.R. or permit withdrawal of the V.R. application. The Scheme being offered, in the absence of any provision for withdrawal of the application before its acceptance, the Petitioner has a right to withdraw the same in the spirit of Section 5 of the Contract Act. Clause 6.2 of the Scheme also envisages that the vacancy caused by voluntary retirement shall stand abolished. In the instant case, the vacancy did not abolish even after the Petitioner was relieved. 11. The averments of the Petitioner further reveal that Opposite Party No. 2 issued a letter dated 9.9.1988 to the Divisional Manager (T), OSRTC, Bhubaneswar vide Annexure-1, wherein he has enclosed Resolution No. 1743/PE dated 6.6.1988 of the Government of Orissa, Department of Public Enterprises together with a copy of the model voluntary retirement scheme for the employees of the public sector undertakings of Orissa to take necessary follow up action. Cause-3 of that letter shows that the application should accompany the details of service particulars of application current salary drawn and other entitlements as envisaged in the scheme and a certificate to the effect that no disciplinary or criminal proceeding is pending against the application is to be furnished by the controlling officer. In the present case, admittedly a disciplinary proceeding was pending against the Petitioner and when the same was continuing, the authority relieved him. 12. In the present case, admittedly a disciplinary proceeding was pending against the Petitioner and when the same was continuing, the authority relieved him. 12. From the above facts, it is clear that though the Petitioner was relieved from the service after his application for voluntary retirement was accepted, nothing was communicated to him regarding rejection or acceptance of his application for V.R., so also regarding withdrawal of his V.R. application. The Scheme not stipulating that an employee opting for voluntary retirement would be disentitled to withdraw his application for V.R. before its acceptance by the competent authority, there is no condition in the Scheme that once an option for voluntary retirement is exercised by an employee and the same is accepted by the employer without communication, the employee would not be entitled to withdraw his application for V.R. Thus, as per the stipulations in Clause 3.2. of the Scheme, since no communication has been made to the Petitioner by the Opposite Parties regarding acceptance or rejection of his V.R. application within thirty days, even thereafter the Petitioner has a right to withdraw the said application before its acceptance. The Opposite Parties have taken a stand that since the VRS was time-bound scheme, the application under the Scheme was accepted by the authority and hence, the Petitioner had no right to withdraw the same, is not acceptable as the same is against Clause 6.1 of the Scheme and there is no dispute over the fact that during the period, i.e., from the date when the V.R. application was made by the Petitioner and before its acceptance was communicated to him, he applied for withdrawal of his VR application and the same was turned down by the authority. 13. From the above, the point which crops up to be decided by us is what is the effective date in this case before which the Petitioner would have withdrawn his application for voluntary retirement under the Scheme? 14. I the present case, before communication was made regarding acceptance or rejection of the voluntary retirement application of the Petitioner, he has flied the withdrawal application. In the circumstances, the authority should have considered his prayer for withdrawal as it was stipulated in the Scheme that before acceptance of the V.R. application by the authority an employee can withdraw the same if acceptance of his application was not communicated to him. In the circumstances, the authority should have considered his prayer for withdrawal as it was stipulated in the Scheme that before acceptance of the V.R. application by the authority an employee can withdraw the same if acceptance of his application was not communicated to him. In the case of Power Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia reported in AIR (1997) 4 SCC 280 , the Apex Court has 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. In the case of Srikantha S.M. v. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd. reported in J.T. (2005) 12 SC, the Apex Court has 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 to come to an end. 15. Taking into consideration the factual backdrop of the present Writ Petition, there is no doubt that the authorities have not communicated to the Petitioner about the acceptance of his voluntary retirement offer under the scheme as has been stipulated in Clause 6.1 thereof. The Petitioner has made an application for withdrawal of his V.R. application before the same was accepted and he continued in service of the Opposite Parties till the end of July, 2002 when a communication regarding his relieve under VRS was made over to him. The acceptance or otherwise of the request of an employee seeking voluntary retirement is required to be communicated to him in writing. This clause is crucial in view of the fact that therein the expression "acceptance rejection of such request" has been provided. The application made by an employee as an offer for voluntary retirement as well as the decision of authority thereupon would be communicated to the employee. 16. Thus, it is crystal clear from the above facts that the jural relationship between the Petitioner and the Opposite Parties continued till the end of July, 2002 and it is not in dispute upto date that he was paid salary and other allowances as a regular employee of the Opposite Parties. 16. Thus, it is crystal clear from the above facts that the jural relationship between the Petitioner and the Opposite Parties continued till the end of July, 2002 and it is not in dispute upto date that he was paid salary and other allowances as a regular employee of the Opposite Parties. In view of the legal position settled by the Apex Court, which we have dealt with in the forgoing paragraph, the Petitioner had every right to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement any time before jural relationship between him and his employer got severed. In other words, the Petitioner had locus penitentiae to withdraw his proposal for voluntary retirement before the relationship of employer and employee came to an end and the Opposite Parties could not have rejected his withdrawal application. Thus, this Court holds that the rejection of the Petitioner's withdrawal application is illegal, as the authorities have not communicated anything to the Petitioner as to whether his application for Voluntary Retirement under the Scheme was accepted or rejected, prior to the date of his relieve from the service in July, 2002. The authorities have also not fulfilled the objective of the scheme as per the stipulation under Clause 6.2 to abolish the post because though the Petitioner was relieved in July, 2002, the posts held by him continued for three months thereafter. 17. It needless to say that voluntary retirement scheme is special scheme as contrasted with general scheme of employment governing terms and conditions of service. Such a scheme is ordinarily floated with a purpose of downsizing the employees. It is beneficial both to the employees as well as employer. Such a scheme is issued for effective functioning of the corporation. We have noticed the benefits admissible under the Scheme. The employee opting for such voluntary retirement not only gets his salary for the period mentioned therein but also gets compensation calculated in the manner specified therein from other benefit enumerated thereunder. 18. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited a decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2215 of 2003 disposed of on 27.1.2006, wherein the Court directed for reinstatement of the Petitioner therein with consequential benefits as the post was not abolished. But in the present case, the post was abolished after three months. 18. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited a decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2215 of 2003 disposed of on 27.1.2006, wherein the Court directed for reinstatement of the Petitioner therein with consequential benefits as the post was not abolished. But in the present case, the post was abolished after three months. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court should not direct for creation of the post, as it involves economic factors and financial considerations are the relevant factors for floating a scheme of voluntary retirement. 19. For the reasons aforementioned, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned relieve order (Annexure-7) is quashed and on equitable measure, this Court directs the Opposite Parties to calculate the monetary benefit of the Petitioner from the date of the aforesaid relieve order till his retirement with all consequential benefits, and pay the same to him within six months from the date of receipt of the order. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. B.P. Das, J. 20. I agree Final Result : Allowed