Judgment Heard both sides. The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order dated 38. 2007 passed by the fourth respondent. By the said order, the petitioner was informed that the withdrawal of notice to go on voluntary retirement given by the petitioner by letter, dated 18. 2007 was considered and rejected by the competent authority. It was also informed that the voluntary retirement, dated 9. 2007 was accepted earlier by the order of the department, dated 27. 2007 will stand. Therefore, the petitioner should accept the fact that he had been voluntarily retired on the date notified without any further correspondence on the subject. 2. The case of the petitioner was that he joined CRPF on 17. 1985 at Group Centre, Avadi, Chennai. After completion of 22 years of service, because of domestic problem, he submitted an application for voluntary retirement. He gave an application on 26. 2007, seeking permission to retire with effect from 11. 2007. Since notice period was fixed beyond three months, the said request was not accepted. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted another application on 27. 2007 to permit him to go on voluntary retirement from service from 9. 2007. 3. It is claimed by the petitioner that after about 3-1/2 weeks, the petitioner sent a letter, dated 18. 2007, withdrawing the earlier letter seeking permission to go on voluntary retirement because of some changed circumstances. However, the fourth respondent, by a letter, dated 27. 2007 had passed an order accepting his application for voluntary retirement with effect from 9. 2007. When the petitioner further made correspondence, the fourth respondent rejected the request for withdrawal of notice. 4. The petitioner contended that he is only 41 years old and still have 17 years of service. When Rule 48 relating to Voluntary retirement provides for three months notice, the petitioner has given the said notice and it is not open to the respondents to accept the same before the expiry of the notice. The writ petition was admitted on 14. 2008. His request for the grant of an interim direction to restore him to duty was rejected on the same day. 5. On notice from this court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, dated Nil (October, 2008). In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner initially submitted the notice for voluntary retirement on 26. 2008. His request for the grant of an interim direction to restore him to duty was rejected on the same day. 5. On notice from this court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, dated Nil (October, 2008). In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner initially submitted the notice for voluntary retirement on 26. 2007 to accept the same with effect from 11. 2007. The said request was not accepted as the petitioner was under an order of transfer to the Group Center, CRPF, Mokamaghat. As per the Standing Order, any person is to he relieved to their new place of posting within 20 days from the date of receipt of transfer order. The petitioner was served with transfer order during June, 2007. However, the petitioner requested that the notice of voluntary retirement was to be accepted with effect from 11. 2007. .6. It was stated that retaining the petitioner without relief on transfer for more than five months was not possible. Therefore, the petitioner was requested to proceed on voluntary retirement on 9. 2007 instead of 11. 2007 so as to avoid an adverse comment from the higher authorities. Before accepting petitioners voluntary retirement, he was counselled by the competent authority through a personal interview to change his decision by explaining him the disadvantages for proceeding on voluntary retirement. But, the petitioner insisted on acceptance of voluntary retirement. Hence it was accepted. The competent authority made an endorsement on his request, which is as follows: ."I counseled. But he is adamant that he should so, I have told holding on him for 04 months would not be correct as he is under transfer. He has insisted that he is prepared to go away within a month. Since he is not convinced by my arguments, I accept his Voluntary Retirement with effect from 01.09.2007. Obtain fresh application today. If he is reluctant, then relieve him on transfer." .7. Therefore, the petitioner was allowed to proceed on voluntary retirement on 9. 2007. Hence the petitioners letter for voluntary retirement dated 18. 2007 was received by the office on 28. 2007. In terms of Rule 48-A(4) of CCS Pension Rules, the request of the petitioner was rejected. In the order of rejection, dated 38. Therefore, the petitioner was allowed to proceed on voluntary retirement on 9. 2007. Hence the petitioners letter for voluntary retirement dated 18. 2007 was received by the office on 28. 2007. In terms of Rule 48-A(4) of CCS Pension Rules, the request of the petitioner was rejected. In the order of rejection, dated 38. 2007, the competent authority also made the following endorsement: ."No. The Official at counseling stage was told at length by me to be in service but he was adamant on taking V/R. I have reasons to believe that the V/R request was put up basically to delay his relief on transfer and he had wanted 4 months time in accepting his V/R request. Since such tactical shrewdness is unbecoming a member of force and since such foul strategies would set unhealthy precedence, I am not inclined to reverse my order on his V/R." 8. It was also stated that the petitioner ever since he joined CRPF enjoyed his home town posting for a long period at Group Centre, Avadi. In fact, in his 22 years of service, he had served Avadi, Chennai for more than 18 years. Therefore, he has used Voluntary Retirement as a way to avoid transfer to Mokamaghat. 9. The counsel for petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of this court in R.Uma Vs. Bank of India reported in 2009 (1) CTC 467 . In that case, the contention was that the petitioner had revoked her offer to go on voluntary retirement by letter, dated 112. 2000. Therefore, the bank could not justify in relieving her on 11. 2001 and there was no offer. 10. It must be noted that the said case arose out of voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) introduced by the Bank, where the Supreme Court has held that such a scheme is based upon contract. In the present case, the petitioner is under the statutory rule under which he is eligible to go on voluntary retirement. Therefore, in the present case, it is open to the authorities to accept the request for voluntary retirement before its withdrawal. In this case, the withdrawal was made after its acceptance and that too as contended by the respondents that the idea of giving notice itself was done to avoid transfer order. 11. Therefore, in the present case, it is open to the authorities to accept the request for voluntary retirement before its withdrawal. In this case, the withdrawal was made after its acceptance and that too as contended by the respondents that the idea of giving notice itself was done to avoid transfer order. 11. The case cited by the petitioner i.e. R.Umas case, this court had referred to the earlier Supreme Courts decision which arose under a voluntary retirement scheme and those schemes are held to be purely contractual. Even in such cases if withdrawal is after acceptance, no relief could have been given to any person. 12. In the light of the above, this court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs.