JUDGMENT Rajendra Menon, J. 1. Challenging the action of respondent/Corporation in rejecting the request made by the petitioner seeking permission to withdraw the application submitted for voluntary retirement in accordance to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2005, floated by the Corporation and making a prayer, for permitting the petitioner to continue in service, this petition is filed. 2. Even though various averments are made in this petition and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/Corporation has refuted the same, it is seen that a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 378/06 Pradeep Soni and Ors. v. M.P. Road Transport Corporation and Anr. and a bunch of other cases, vide order dated 20.7.2007, has allowed similar claim made by employees identically situated like the petitioner and it was held by the learned Division Bench that employees like the petitioner were entitled in law to withdraw their options for voluntary retirement within the validity period of the scheme. The aforesaid writ appeal was allowed and the same is disposed of by the Division Bench in the following terms: Therefore, the employees were entitled in law to withdraw their option for voluntary retirement within the validity period and as the validity period has been extended and they have withdrawn their option they should be deemed to be in service. Be it noted that none of the appellants has accepted any kind of benefit under the voluntary retirement scheme. Some of them are continuing in service. The employees who are continuing in service should be allowed to continue till the jural relationship between the employees and employer comes to an end as per law. The appellants who are not in service should be reinstated in service and they shall reap all the consequential benefits. 3. Subsequently, another Division Bench in the case of M.P.S.R.T.C and two Ors. v. Hari Prasad Choudhary and Anr. in Writ Appeal No. 459/2008 decided on 16.6.2008, has observed as under: The respondent/Workman submitted his resignation under the voluntary retirement scheme but much before the validity period he withdrew the resignation on 1.8.2005. Undisputedly the period of scheme was extended and was to end by July 2007. In the meanwhile, without rejecting the application seeking withdrawal, of voluntary retirement the present appellant accepted the application seeking voluntary retirement and retired the respondent. The said order passed by the appellant/Corporation has been set aside by the learned Single Judge. 4. Undisputedly the period of scheme was extended and was to end by July 2007. In the meanwhile, without rejecting the application seeking withdrawal, of voluntary retirement the present appellant accepted the application seeking voluntary retirement and retired the respondent. The said order passed by the appellant/Corporation has been set aside by the learned Single Judge. 4. Shri Shobhit Aditya, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation, pointed out that on a SLP being filed by the Corporation, certain interim orders have been passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 19357/2007. A perusal of the order passed by the Supreme Court indicates that it has only stayed the order passed in Writ Appeal No. 1269/2006. Division Bench of this Court has decided bunch of cases and even on 16.6.2008 i.e. after the order was passed by the Supreme Court on 29.1.2008, petitions have been decided. 5. Considering the same, this Court does not see any reason to adjourn the cases. As Division Bench has passed orders in various cases and it is reported by Seamed Counsel for the petitioner that in many of the cases, benefit is granted by the respondent Corporation as per the orders of the Division Bench, that being so, there is no reason to deny similar benefit to the petitioner. 6. Considering the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. Keeping in view the observations made by the Division Bench in the cases referred to hereinabove, respondent Corporation is directed to grant similar benefit to the petitioner in case petitioner had submitted his application for withdrawal of the retirement prior to its acceptance and was in service, when the present petition was filed and had not accepted the benefit of voluntary retirement till filing of this petition. In case, it is found that petitioner has accepted the benefit of voluntary retirement or was not in service when the offer was withdrawn, respondents are free to pass orders in accordance to law. However, if it is found that petitioner has not accepted the benefit of retirement, was in service at the time of filing of this petition and had submitted application for withdrawal of voluntary retirement before its acceptance and communication, benefit as has been granted to similarly situated employees in pursuance to the orders passed by the Division Bench in the cases referred hereinabove, shall be granted to the petitioners. 7. 7. Needless, to emphasize that in case petitioner has any further grievance with regard to the action taken by the respondents, he shall be at liberty to assail the same in accordance to law. The action in accordance to the aforesaid directions shall be taken by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petition stands allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid directions without any order so as to costs.