JUDGMENT P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.: The appellant-State Bank of Mysore has filed this writ appeal challenging the order dated 16-11-2006 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 12512 of 2002, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, directing the appellant-Bank to consider the case of the respondent-Writ petitioner for pension, computed value of pension etc., as per the State Bank of Mysore (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, treating the respondent-writ petitioner as having voluntarily retired under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations and to pay all such emoluments for the period of privilege leave that was standing to his credit at the time of his voluntary retirement from the services of the appellant-Bank. 2. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider a similar fact situation in a batch of writ appeals in the case of Syndicate Bank v K. V. Venkatesh and Others, and this Court after following the decisions of the Apex Court, viz.: (i) M/s. J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others; (ii) UCO Bank and Others v Sanwar Mal; (iii) Jaipal Singh v Smt. Sumitra Mahajan and Another. held that persons like the respondent herein do not fulfill any of the criteria laid down in the Pension Regulations and therefore, are not entitled to the pensionary benefits and accordingly, set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge impugned therein and allowed the writ appeals. 3. It is settled law that resignation is not complete until it is accepted by the proper authority and before such acceptance an employee can change his mind and withdraw the resignation but once the resignation is accepted the contract comes to an end and the relationship of master and servant stands snapped. (Vide M/s. J.K Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited's case) 4. Similarly, the Apex Court in UCO Bank's case, held that an employee can resign at any point of time, even on the second day of his appointment but in the case of retirement, he retires only after attaining the age of superannuation or in the case of voluntary retirement on completion of qualifying service. The effect of resignation and retirement to the extent that there is severance of employment but in service jurisprudence both the expressions are understood differently. The effect of resignation and retirement to the extent that there is severance of employment but in service jurisprudence both the expressions are understood differently. Under the regulations, the expressions 'resignation' and 'retirement' have been employed for different purpose and carry different meanings. It has been further held that the resignation brings about complete cessation of master and servant relationship whereas voluntary retirement maintains the relationship for the purposes of grant of retiral benefits, in view of the past service. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Jaipal Singh, interpreting the expressions 'superannuation', 'voluntary retirement', 'compulsory retirement' and 'resignation', has held as hereunder: "Voluntary retirement and resignation involve voluntary acts on the part of the employees to leave service and though both involve voluntary acts, they operate differently. One of the basic distinction between the two is that in the case of resignation, it can be tendered at any time but in the case of voluntary retirement, it can only be sought for after rendering prescribed period of qualifying service. In the case of resignation, a prior permission is not mandatory while in the case of voluntary retirement, permission of concerned employer is requisite condition. In the case of resignation, the relationship of employer and employee terminates on acceptance of resignation whereas in the case of retirement, voluntary or on superannuation, the relationship continues for the purposes of payment of retiral benefits". 6. Following these well-settled principles of law, the Division Bench of this Court in a batch of cases referred to above, i.e., Syndicate Bank's case, by order dated 18th November, 2006, held that granting pension to the employees treating their services as one of voluntary retirement and providing pension when the same is not in conformity with the Regulations of Pension is not justified. 7. In our considered opinion, the said ratios laid down by the Apex Court and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, referred to supra, are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.