Judgment :- The question that is involved in this writ petition is as to whether before the date on which the voluntary retirement comes into effect, extension of the said date can be sought for. 2. Brief facts are the petitioner, while working in the 3rd respondent – Border Security Force and after having put in more than 38 years of service, requested the 3rd respondent to permit him to take voluntary retirement with effect from 31.12.2005 for the reasons mentioned in his application dated 17.09.2005. Among other things, the petitioner had mentioned in his application that on account of his wife’s ill health and as his wife had to undergo various operations due to the fact that she was suffering from cancer of the ovary, the petitioner was constrained to seek voluntary retirement from the afore-mentioned date, that is 31.12.2005. The request of the petitioner was accepted by the 3rd respondent on 2.12.2005. Thereafterwards, the petitioner made another request to the 3rd respondent to permit him to take voluntary retirement with effect from 31.03.2006 instead of 31.12.2005. The 3rd respondent issued an endorsement to the petitioner as per Annexure-“A” dated 31.12.2005 to the effect that there is no provision to extend the date of voluntary retirement since the notice has been accepted. It is this endorsement that has given rise to this writ petition. 3. Submission of the petitioner’s counsel is that though the petitioner initially sought for voluntary retirement with effect from 31.12.2005, later on, following the 6th Pay Commission coming into effect from 1.1.2006, the petitioner therefore sought for extension of the date from 31.12.2005 to 31.03.2006. Therefore, it is contended that if the voluntary retirement had not come into effect on the date when the application was given by the petitioner, that is on 22.12.2005, the authorities could not have declined to postpone the date of voluntary retirement. Moreover, the CCS Pension Rules of 1972 does not bar a Government servant from making an application or seeking postponement of the voluntary retirement date and therefore, the authority could not have refused to allow the said prayer of the petitioner. Since the relevant rules are silent with regard to the amendment or extension of date of voluntary retirement, the order that is under challenge cannot be sustained in law. Since the relevant rules are silent with regard to the amendment or extension of date of voluntary retirement, the order that is under challenge cannot be sustained in law. The above submission is sought to be fortified by relying on the Apex Court ruling reported in AIR 2002 SC 1341 . 4. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that once the application is given by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement, and it came to be accepted on 2.12.2005, the question of the petitioner further seeking extension or amending his original prayer therefore, does not arise and even the CCS Rules which governs the petitioner does not permit for such a contingency. In this connection, learned counsel for respondent took me through the relevant provisions of the CCS Rules, 1972. Particular reference was made to Rule 11.48 A (ii) as well as sub-clause (iv). 5. Having thus considered the submissions put forward and after going through the relevant rules and material in this connection, the point for consideration is whether the respondent-authorities were justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for extension of his date of voluntary retirement from 31.12.2005 to 31.03.2006. 6. The relevant rules consisting the voluntary retirement are at 11.48-A or the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and they are as under: “11.48A Retirement on completion of 20 years’ qualifying service: (1) At any time after a government servant has completed twenty years’ qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the Appointing Authority, retire from service. Provided that this sub-rule shall not apply to Government servant, including scientist or technical expert who is- (i) on assignment under the Indian Technical and Economic Co-operation (ITEC) Programme of the Ministry of External Affairs and other aid programmes. (ii) posted abroad in foreign based offices of the Ministries/Departments. (iii) On a specific contract assignment to a foreign Government, unless, after having been transferred to India, he has resumed the charge of the post of India and served for a period of not less than one year. (ii) posted abroad in foreign based offices of the Ministries/Departments. (iii) On a specific contract assignment to a foreign Government, unless, after having been transferred to India, he has resumed the charge of the post of India and served for a period of not less than one year. (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the Appointing Authority:- Provided that where the Appointing Authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. (2) Deleted. (3-A)(a) A Government servant referred to in sub-rule (1) may make a request in writing to the Appointing Authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons therefore; (b) On receipt of a request under Clause (a), the Appointing authority subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), may consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the Appointing Authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the Government servant shall not apply for communication of a part of his pension before the expiry of the period of notice of three months. (4) A Government servant, who has elected to retire under rule has given the necessary notice to that effect to the Appointing Authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority. Provided that the request for withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement.” 7. It is clear from clause (4) of the aforesaid rules that a Government servant who opts for voluntary retirement and has given notice to that effect, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of the authority and provided that the request for withdrawal shall be made before the intending date of retirement. 8. In the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner gave his application on 17.09.2005 seeking to retire voluntarily from the services with effect from 31.12.2005. The said letter given by the petitioner was also accepted on 2.12.2005. 8. In the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner gave his application on 17.09.2005 seeking to retire voluntarily from the services with effect from 31.12.2005. The said letter given by the petitioner was also accepted on 2.12.2005. Before the actual date from which the voluntary retirement was to take place, that is 31.12.2005, the petitioner gave another application on 22.12.2005. By the said letter, he sought for time extension till 31.03.2006. As the request by the petitioner was made within the time, much before the actual date from which the voluntary retirement was to take effect, that is from 31.12.2005, the authorities therefore could not have declined the request of the petitioner, there is no provision which bars making an application seeking extension of time but only as regards the withdrawal of the request made for voluntary retirement, the rule provides that the said withdrawal shall be permitted only with the specific approval of the authority. In the case on hand, all that the petitioner sought was to postpone the date of giving effect of his voluntary retirement by three months so as to facilitate the petitioner to reap the benefits of the 6th pay commission. 9. In the decision Shambhu Murari Sinha vs. Project and Development India Ltd., and Another ( AIR 2002 SC 1341 ), Apex Court, dealing with the case of voluntary retirement, held that where the employee withdrew his option for voluntary retirement, even before the voluntary retirement, even before the voluntary retirement has come into effect, the employer could not have refused to accept the request of the employee who sought withdrawal of his resignation. The Court, in its decision, made the following observation: Therefore, in view of the settled position of the law and the terms of the letter of acceptance, the appellant had locus poenitentiae to withdrew his proposal for voluntary retirement before the relationship of employer and employee came to an end.” 10. The Court, in its decision, made the following observation: Therefore, in view of the settled position of the law and the terms of the letter of acceptance, the appellant had locus poenitentiae to withdrew his proposal for voluntary retirement before the relationship of employer and employee came to an end.” 10. The aforesaid principles are also applicable with all force to the present case in as much as the petitioner had sought for extension of his date of voluntary retirement before the actual date, that is 31.12.2005 and as on the date when the application was given by the petitioner seeking time extension, his voluntary retirement had not come into effect and therefore, following the aforesaid principle laid down by the Apex Court and the CCS Rules, 1972 also being silent on the aspect of the time extension sought, in the absence of there being a specific bar in the CCS Rules preventing a Government servant from making an application seeking extension of time, the authorities therefore, could not have rejected the request of the petitioner. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order at Annexure-“E” therefore cannot be sustained in law and the consequent order passed as per Annexure-“R9” on 9.2.2009 also, therefore cannot be sustained in law. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and impugned order at Annexure-“E” is set-aside and respondents are directed to consider the prayer of the petitioner for re-fixation of pay consequent to the 6th Pay commission and to release all the benefits which the petitioner will be entitled, in law. Respondents shall pass necessary orders in this regard within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.