JUDGMENT : f B.P. Ray, J. - In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order under Annexure 3, by which the VRS of the Petitioner was accepted by the competent authority of Swami Vivekananda National Institute of Rehabilitation Training & Research, Olatpur, Cuttack (in short, 'SVNIRTAR') which is an undertaking of Govt. of India in the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the Petitioner's case in brief is that he was working as Orthopaedic Surgeon in SVNIRTAR. The Petitioner submitted an application under Annexure 1 dated 26.2.2008 for voluntary retirement from service. It was stated in the application that the Petitioner would complete 20 years of service in the Institute on 16.2.2009. It was also stated that the Petitioner was unable to continue in service because of his health problem and he may be permitted to take VRS w.e.f. 28.2.2009. According to the Petitioner, when the application under Annexure 1 was pending consideration, the Petitioner submitted another application under Annexure 2, which is dated 6.11.2008 stating inter alia that the Petitioner wanted to withdraw the application for voluntary retirement submitted by him under Annexure 1 and he be permitted to continue in service. The Petitioner alleges that without considering the application under Annexure 2, the competent authority has communicated an Office Memorandum under Annexure 3 which is dated 10.11.2008, in which it was stated that the request of the Petitioner for VRS from service w.e.f. 28.2.2009 has been accepted by the competent authority and accordingly, the Petitioner would stand relieved from service on the due date. This order under Annexure 3 is assailed in this writ application solely on the ground that the Petitioner having withdrawn the VRS application submitted by him before its acceptance, there was hardly any scope to pass the impugned order under Annexure 3. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties refuting the allegations made in the writ petition. It was stated in the counter affidavit that the application for VRS submitted by the Petitioner was forwarded by the Director in the letter under Annexure B dated 25.6.2008 to the Chairperson of the Executive Council, who is competent to take decision in the matter. It was stated in the counter affidavit that the application for VRS submitted by the Petitioner was forwarded by the Director in the letter under Annexure B dated 25.6.2008 to the Chairperson of the Executive Council, who is competent to take decision in the matter. The Chairperson of the Executive Council accepted the VRS of the Petitioner and conveyed his approval in Annexure C dated 31.10.2008, which was received by the Director on 4.11.2008 and this fact was intimated to the Petitioner under Annexure D, which has also been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 3. It was also stated that the request of the Petitioner for withdrawal of the VRS application was forwarded to the appointing authority and the appointing authority did not accept the request of the Petitioner for withdrawal of the voluntary retirement from service under Annexure E annexed to the counter affidavit. On the basis of these averments, it was stated that the writ application was not maintainable and the same was liable to be dismissed. 4. The Petitioner has filed a rejoinder stating that the withdrawal of VRS application is valid before the employee was actually released from service. The opp. parties have filed a reply to the rejoinder, in which the averments made in the counter have been reiterated. However, the Petitioner has filed a further reply to such affidavit filed by the opposite party which do not contain any additional facts. 5. Mr. Bijan Ray, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner having withdrawn his VRS application prior to its acceptance, the opposite parties have erred in law in accepting the VRS of the Petitioner. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the opposite parties submits that the VRS application of the Petitioner was accepted by the competent authority and the factum of acceptance of VRS of the Petitioner was conveyed in the letter under Annexure C dated 31.10.2008. This factum of acceptance was merely communicated to the Petitioner in the letter under Annexure D dated 10.11.2008. Therefore, according to Mr. Rath, learned Counsel for the opposite parties, there is no infirmity in the order accepting the VRS of the Petitioner. 6. The aforesaid rival contentions require careful consideration. Undisputedly, the Petitioner submitted application for VRS and in that application the Petitioner stated that the VRS sought by him be made effective from 28.2.2009. Therefore, according to Mr. Rath, learned Counsel for the opposite parties, there is no infirmity in the order accepting the VRS of the Petitioner. 6. The aforesaid rival contentions require careful consideration. Undisputedly, the Petitioner submitted application for VRS and in that application the Petitioner stated that the VRS sought by him be made effective from 28.2.2009. When this application was pending, the Petitioner withdrew the same as would appear from Annexure 2 dated 6.11.2008. It is the contention of the opposite parties that the order of the competent authority accepting the VRS of the Petitioner was communicated to the Director of the Institute under Annexure C which was received in the Directorate on 4.11.2008 and only thereafter, the Petitioner submitted an application withdrawing the VRS under Annexure 2 dated 6.11.2008. This factual aspect is seriously disputed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner inasmuch as, according to Mr. Ray, learned Counsel for the Petitioner the order accepting VRS under Annexure 3 is dated 10.11.2008, whereas, the Petitioner had submitted application for withdrawal of the VRS on 6.11.2008 and therefore, there was no impediment in permitting the Petitioner to withdraw the VRS submitted by him. 7. Although, we find from the materials available on record that the order accepting the VRS of the Petitioner was communicated in the letter under Annexure C dated 31.10.2008 and was received in the Directorate on 4.11.2008, yet the same was communicated to the Petitioner in the impugned order under Annexure 3, which is dated 10.11.2008. Therefore, the Petitioner had withdrawn his VRS application prior to the order of acceptance was communicated to him. In our considered view, it was within the domain of the Petitioner to withdraw the VRS application submitted by him prior to its acceptance. Law in this regard is no more res integra. The apex Court in the case of Shambhu Murari Sinha Vs. Project and Development India Ltd. and Another, has held that: In absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a prospective resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective, and it, becomes effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office tenure of the resignor. Project and Development India Ltd. and Another, has held that: In absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a prospective resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective, and it, becomes effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office tenure of the resignor. Keeping in view, the law laid down by the apex Court in the decision (supra), we are of the further view that the primary order under Annexure C which is pressed into service to contend that VRS was accepted prior to the submission of the withdrawal application, itself states inter alia that the competent authority has conveyed the approval for VRS of the Petitioner w.e.f. 28.2.2009. In other words, the order accepting the VRS of the Petitioner would be effective from 28.2.2009. Therefore, without entering into the controversy that the order under Annexure C was received in the Directorate on 4.11.2008 where after the Petitioner submitted his withdrawal application/we hold that the withdrawal application was not affected in any manner whatsoever for the reason that the order of competent authority would operate on and from 28.2.2009. Therefore, jural relationship between the Petitioner and his employer continues and during continuance of jural relationship, the Petitioner had withdrawn his VRS application under Annexure 2, which is dated 6.11.2008. Since the VRS of the Petitioner would operate on and from 28.2.2009, there was no impediment in withdrawing the VRS submitted by the Petitioner prior to the same coming into operation. In such view of the matter, the order under Annexure 3 is unsustainable in law and is liable to be quashed, which we hereby do. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Final Result : Allowed