1. Petitioner has questioned order No. 606 of DDFSK of 1994 dated 19-10-1994, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. Petitioner came to be engaged in August 1979 on daily wage basis. He remained absent and was dis-banded. There-after he again came to be re-engaged on daily wage basis vide order dated 14-1-1984 by the respondents. His services were regularized along with other daily wagers, vide order dated 24-1-1994 and he figured at serial No. 24. In the month of September 1994, petitioner tendered resignation which came to be accepted vide order No. 606 of 1994 dated 19-10-1994. It is further submitted that after lapse more than five months, the petitioner moved an application dated 4-1-1995, explaining the circumstances which made him to tender resignation and had prayed that the order dated 19-10-1994 be revoked and his absence be treated on leave of whatever nature, due to him. The application came to be diarized and remained pending before the concerned authorities for a pretty long time. Ultimately the said application came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 1-11-1996, impugned in this petition. 3. Respondents have filed objections and resisted the petition on various grounds. 4. The core question involved in the writ petition is whether resignation tendered by can be withdrawn after its acceptance by the authority concerned and whether the order of acceptance of resignation can be revoked by the competent authority? 5. It is beaten law of the land that resignation tendered can, be withdrawn before its acceptance and once it is accepted, it cannot be withdrawn. I am fortified in my view by the law laid down by the apex court and this court in catena of authorities, a few of which are quoted hereunder:- 1. Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 180. 2. Mohammad Amin Pukhta Vs. State of J&K, 1997 SLJ 205. 3. Shambhu Murari Sinha V. Project and development India, AIR 2000 SC 2473. 4. North Zone Cultural Centre Vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar, AIR 2003 SC 2719. 6. Apex court in a recent judgment reported as Chand Mal Chayal V. State of Rajasthan, 2006 AIR SCW 5068 also held that no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the re-employment of the employee who had already resigned and whose resignation has been accepted. 4. North Zone Cultural Centre Vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar, AIR 2003 SC 2719. 6. Apex court in a recent judgment reported as Chand Mal Chayal V. State of Rajasthan, 2006 AIR SCW 5068 also held that no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the re-employment of the employee who had already resigned and whose resignation has been accepted. In the given circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the apex court, there is no merit in the case at hand, which is accordingly dismissed.