Judgment :- 1. The petitioner P.K. Ganesan submitted his application seeking voluntary retirement on 30.11.2002 in response to voluntary retirement scheme introduced by the respondent corporation requesting the respondent to accept his offer to go on voluntary retirement in view of his family circumstances. Even before the petitioners offer to voluntarily retire was accepted by the respondent, the petitioner, through his letter dated 10.03.2003 had with drawn his application dated 30.11.2002. In the meanwhile, the second respondent in his letter dated 22.3.2003 stated that the options for Voluntary Retirement received from the employees of the Corporation with other required details have been placed before the Board for examination. The Board, after detailed discussions, have recommended only 4 staffs to go on Voluntary Retirement, including the petitioner. 2. Accordingly, the petitioner was informed about the same. Immediately after receipt of that letter, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 24.3.2003 to the first respondent herein with a copy to the second respondent informing that he had already withdrawn his application for voluntary retirement on 10.3.2003 itself, even before the circular accepting the petitioners letter was served on 22.3.2003 and, therefore, the petitioner requested to treat his application for voluntary retirement as withdrawn and further made request to permit the petitioner to continue in service. He was also continuously working. Subsequently on 11.4.2003, the petitioner also met the first respondent in person and submitted that he had already withdrawn his request to go on voluntary retirement from service. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has rightly sent a letter dated 10.3.2003 on the basis of G.O.No.666 P & AR Department dated 26.6.1981, which says that the offer of voluntary retirement can be withdrawn at any time before the final orders are passed. Therefore, the stand of the respondent that the option to go on Voluntary Retirement was accepted, cannot be sustained as it goes against G.O.No. 666 dated 26.6.1981. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that immediately after the receipt of the letter dated 16.02.2004, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and this Court was also pleased to pass an interim injunction restraining the respondent from relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant Field Conductor, Nelliyalam Tea Division, TANTEA, Nelliyalam, Nilgiris District. 4. The petitioner was working as Assistant Field Conductor. 4. The petitioner was working as Assistant Field Conductor. By virtue order passed by this Court on 20.02.2004, the petitioner is still continuing in service with the respondents. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by G.O. No. 666, dated 26.6.1981 and on that basis prayed for allowing the writ petition. 5. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that still the petitioner is continuing in service. Even today the respondents have not taken any further action. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner made his application dated 30.11.2002 seeking permission to leave the service of the respondents voluntarily in response to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Even before the offer made by the petitioner by his letter dated 30.11.2002 came to be admitted by the respondent, by another letter dated 10.03.2003, the petitioner withdrew his request to go on voluntary retirement. Therefore, the respondents are not entitled to contend or take a stand that the petitioners letter has already been accepted. It is settled legal position that a person who is making a request to go on voluntary retirement from service is always at liberty to withdraw his letter seeking a Voluntary Retirement before the same is accepted by the competent authority. 7. In vice Chairman and Managing Director, APSIDC Ltd. Vs. R. Varaprasad reported in 2003 -III- LLJ 23 the Scheme of the Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development Corporation Limited for VRS was under consideration. The Apex Court held that after the acceptance of VRS, withdrawal of the option was not permissible, though it may be prior to actual relieving of the employee. 8. In Bank of India Vs. O.P. Swarnakar reported in (2003) 2 SCC 721 the Punjab National Bank Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 was under consideration. In the facts and circumstances of that case, the Apex Court held that the employee could withdraw his option from the Scheme before the was accepted. 9. In the present case, G.O.No. 666 dated 26.6.1981 stipulates that the offer to go on voluntary retirement can be withdrawn, at any time before final orders are passed, by both the respondent as well as the petitioner. Therefore, the letter dated 10.03.2003 of the petitioner seeking with drawal of the letter of voluntary retirement from service has to be treated as the petitioners withdrawal and the same is legally supported by the G.O.No.666. 10. Therefore, the letter dated 10.03.2003 of the petitioner seeking with drawal of the letter of voluntary retirement from service has to be treated as the petitioners withdrawal and the same is legally supported by the G.O.No.666. 10. Hence this Court finds that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is fair. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed by quashing the order in Ref.No. 1783/2002E dated 23.04.2003 and the order dated 16.2.2004 in Proc. No. 180/2004E. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.