JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The Order Dated 24th October, 2005 (Annexure 5) passed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation accepting the application dtd. 7.10.2005 filed by the Petitioner opting retirement from the Corporation service under Voluntary Retirement Scheme & intimating the Petitioner that he will be relieved from the Corporation service w.e.f. 31.10.2005 afternoon is assailed in this Writ Petition. 2. In the year 1983 the Petitioner entered into service as a Peon in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 3-Corpbration. It is submitted that he was discharging his duties to the best of his ability & to the fullest-satisfaction of all the authorities concerned. In the year 2005 the Corporation decided to sponsor a Voluntary Retirement Scheme & intimated the said fact to all employees & invited applications from those who intended to avail the benefits under the said Scheme. The Petitioner admittedly submitted his option on 7th October, 2005. According to the Petitioner subsequently he realized that he was compelled by situation & without realizing the true impact he had submitted the option. Therefore,-he withdrew the option on 14th October, 2005 by filing another application. 3. The sale grievance of the Petitioner in this Writ Petition is that as he had already withdrawn his option to take voluntary retirement before any decision was taken, the subsequent order Annexure-5 accepting the option was unjust & illegal & may be set aside. 4. After receiving notice, Opp. Parties 2 & 3 entered appearance & filed a counter affidavit repudiating the allegations made in the Writ Petition. Opp. Party No. 1 also filed an affidavit. 5. An option seeking voluntary retirement or resignation means normal renouncement or relinquishment of office having an effect of termination of employment/service. An employee has a right to resign or seek premature retirement, however, subject to the statutory provisions, if any, governing the same. The retirement may be sought with immediate effect at the earliest possible time or prospectively, i.e. to be effective from a future date. Intention of the employee seeking retirement is of paramount importance & is spelt out from the application itself. Acceptance of the application; for retirement is to be considered as per the law applicable, if any, otherwise also it would depend whether it requires acceptance at all. 6. In the case of Jai Ram Vs. Intention of the employee seeking retirement is of paramount importance & is spelt out from the application itself. Acceptance of the application; for retirement is to be considered as per the law applicable, if any, otherwise also it would depend whether it requires acceptance at all. 6. In the case of Jai Ram Vs. Union of India (UOI), the Supreme Court considered the case of self seeking retirement of an employee & held as under. it may be conceded that it is open to a servant, who has expressed a desire to retire from service & applied to his superior officer, to give him the requisite permission, to change his mind subsequently & ask for cancellation of the permission, thus, obtained, but he can be allowed to do so as long as he continues in service & not after he has been terminated. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India (UOI) the Supreme Court considered the ease of withdrawing a resignation & held that till the resignation was accepted by the authorities in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance, the public servant concerned, has locus poenitentiae but not thereafter.-In other words once the resignation became effective on the date of its acceptance by the authorities, subsequent withdrawal of, the same is ineffective even if acceptance of the resignation was not intimated to him. 7. The Orissa State Financial-Corporation of which the Petitioner was an employee issued a notice on 13th September, 2005 in consonance with the decision taken by its Board of Directors in 336th meeting held on 10th August, 2005 & invited applications from the employees who were interested to opt for VRS or VSS. The said notice further stipulated that the application so submitted shall be dealt with in accordance with the Scheme. Claust-6.1 of the Scheme reads as follows; Application of Voluntary Separation cannot be withdrawn after its acceptance is communicated by the competent authority to the employee concerned. (emphasis supplied) 8. In the case at hand, admittedly, the Petitioner had filed an application on 7th October, 2005 seeking voluntary retirement. The said letter reads follows: I request that I may be permitted to retire voluntarily from service of the Corporation under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Further, I undertake not to join in any post under the State Government/any State P.S.Us or any autonomous agency of the State Government. The said letter reads follows: I request that I may be permitted to retire voluntarily from service of the Corporation under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Further, I undertake not to join in any post under the State Government/any State P.S.Us or any autonomous agency of the State Government. The letter thus clearly reveals that the option was without any condition. The said letter admittedly was submitted to the Managing Director, OSFC as per the Scheme. The Petitioner alleges that on second thought he decided to withdraw the option & intimated the said fact by letter dtd. 14.10.2005 (Annexure-3). Admittedly, the said letter of withdrawal was not submitted before the Managing Director of the Corporation, who is the competent authority to deal with the option, instead the same was submitted before the Chairman-Cum-Principal Secretary, Industries Department. It is alleged that the Petitioner submitted another letter of withdrawal on 24.10.2005 also before the Chairman-Cum-Principal Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Bhubaneswar. The grievance of the Petitioner is that in spite of said letters the Corporation took a decision on 24.10.2005 & intimated that the option filed by the Petitioner to voluntary retire has been accepted & he shall cease to be an employee of the Corporation w.e.f. 31.10.2005. It is emphatically submitted that the letter of acceptance having been issued much after the withdrawal of the application, the same is not sustainable in law & is liable to be quashed. 9. After receiving notice from this Court, a counter affidavit was filed by Opp. Parties 2 & 3 taking the stand that the Petitioner was not compelled to opt for voluntary retirement. Notice (Annexure-1) itself would reveal that only those employees, who were interested to opt VRS/VSS, were requested to file their applications, in the prescribed form, within the stipulated time. It is further averred that the Petitioner with open eyes, without any coercion or pressure from any side submitted an application on 7.10.2005, vide Annexure-10 before the Managing Director of the Corporation, who is the competent authority to deal with option. The said option was processed along with others & as the Petitioner satisfied all the criteria the option was accepted & the Petitioner was intimated with regard to the said acceptance by letter dtd. 24.10.2005 (Annexure-5). By the said letter he was also intimated that he will be relieved from service of the Corporation w.e.f. 31.10.2.005 after noon. 10. The said option was processed along with others & as the Petitioner satisfied all the criteria the option was accepted & the Petitioner was intimated with regard to the said acceptance by letter dtd. 24.10.2005 (Annexure-5). By the said letter he was also intimated that he will be relieved from service of the Corporation w.e.f. 31.10.2.005 after noon. 10. The submission of the Petitioner, that he filed a petition for withdrawal of his option on 14.10.2005 (Annexure-3) & 24.10.2005, (Anneure-5) is strongly repudiated. It is also averred that the said letters were never submitted before the Managing Director of the Corporation, who is the competent authority to deal with applications opting VRS/VSS. It is further averred by the Opp. Parties that the letter of withdrawal dtd. 24.10.2005 (Annexure-5) was received by the Managing Director only on 2.11.2005, but by then the Corporation had already accepted the application filed by the Petitioner opting voluntary retirement & he was intimated that he would be relieved from the Corporation service w.e.f. 31.10.2005. On being called upon the Chairman-Cum-Principal Secretary, Government of Orissa, Industries Department, also filed an affidavit on behalf Opp. Party No. 3. In paragraph-5 of the affidavit it is stated that the representation filed by the Petitioner before the Principal Secretary to Government dtd. 24.10.2005 was received through "dakpad" & was placed before him on 26.10.2005. The Chairman, not being the competent authority to deal with the said application. On 27.10.2005 it was forwarded to the Managing Director, Orissa State Financial Corporation. 30th & 1st November, 2005 being holidays. The letter was received by the Managing Director on 2.11.2005. In the said affidavit opposite arty No. 1 has taken a positive stand that the application dtd. 14.10.2005, said to have been submitted by the Petitioner was never received by the establishment of the said Opp. Party. It is pertinent to mention there that Opp. Parties 2 & 3 in their counter affidavit have specifically averred that they had not received the application said to have been submitted by, the Petitioner on 14.10.2005 & sated that the same was a manufactured document created for the purpose of the Writ Petition. 11. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length, perused the pleadings & the documents annexed thereto meticulously. Mr. 11. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length, perused the pleadings & the documents annexed thereto meticulously. Mr. Das, in course of hearing reiterated the stand taken by him in the Writ Petition & submitted that the application filed by the Petitioner on 14.10.2005 withdrawing option for voluntary retirement tendered on 7.10.2005, was duly received, but then no action was taken on the same. It is further submitted that the Petitioner continued in the Corporation service till 31.10.2005 & as the withdrawal letter dtd. 14.10.2005 & 24.1.0.2005 were received prior to the said date, the authorities acted illegally & with material irregularity in accepting the option of voluntary retirement even after it was withdrawn. 12. The aforesaid submissions are strongly repudiated by Mr. C.A. Rao, Learned Counsel appearing for Opp. Parties 2 & 3. Relying upon Cfause-6.1 of the Scheme (quoted supra), Mr. Rao submitted that the Scheme itself barred, withdrawal of an application far voluntary retirement after its acceptance is communicated to the employee concerned. It is stated that the application filed by the Petitioner was accepted & the-said fact was communicated to the Petitioner on 24.10.2005, In the alternative, it is submitted by Mr. Rao that the Managing Director of the Corporation being the competent authority to either accept and/or reject the petition filed for voluntary retirement, it was incumbent upon the Petitioner to submit the application seeking withdrawal of the earlier application filed, seeking VRS before the said authority. Admittedly, the Petitioner had not submitted any application before the Managing Director intimating his intention to withdraw the option tendered by him for' voluntary retirement. It is further emphatically submitted that the letter submitted by the Petitioner before the Chairman-cum-Secretary of the Industry Department was received by the Managing Director only on 2.11.2005 i.e. much after the date of acceptance of the application filed by the Petitioner opting voluntary retirement & even after on 31.10.2005 on which date the Petitioner was relived from service. Thus, the Writ Petition has absolutely no merit & the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. According to Mr. Das, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, as the Managing Director of the Corporation was not present he had filed an application before the Chairman-Cum-Secretary of the Industries Department, however no materials are produced before this Court to-reveal that the Managing Director was absent. 14. 13. According to Mr. Das, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, as the Managing Director of the Corporation was not present he had filed an application before the Chairman-Cum-Secretary of the Industries Department, however no materials are produced before this Court to-reveal that the Managing Director was absent. 14. Be that as it may, the documents annexed to the Writ Petition clearly gives an impression that the representation dated 24.10.2005 submitted by the Petitioner before Opp. Party No. 2, who was not the competent authority, was forwarded to the Managing Director of the Corporation & was received on 2.11.2005, i.e. much after acceptance of the application dtd. 7.10.2005 filed by the Petitioner, which was accepted on 24.10.2005 & even after on 31.10.2005 when the Petitioner was relieved from the Corporation service. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussions vis-a-vis Clause-6.1 of the Scheme & the point of law decided by the Supreme Court enunciated above, we do not find any fault with the decision taken by the Corporation in accepting the application filed by the Petitioner seeking voluntary retirement. This Writ Petition has thus no merits & stands dismissed. B.N. Mahapatra, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed