Judgment D.A. Mehta, J.—The petitioner has challenged by this petition the action of the respondents in treating the petitioner as having voluntarily retired. The petitioner has claimed the following substantive relief:— a. The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to accept the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of her application of voluntarily retirement and further be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to resume her duties as if she had never given an application for voluntarily retirement. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner is serving in an educational institution named Stree Adhyapan Mandir, Chitrasani run by respondent No. 3 herein as a Principal since 1978. Vide letter dated 28th June, 1999, the petitioner tendered an application seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 30th September, 1999. The petitioner received a communication dated 29th June, 1999 informing the petitioner that respondent No. 3 – Trust had accepted, in the meeting of the trust held at Bombay, the application. It is the case of the petitioner that the retirement was to take effect from 30th September, 1999 but before that date, the petitioner had, vide letter dated 27th September, 1999, informed respondent No. 1 that the petitioner is withdrawing her application voluntarily. 3. Though there are various averments in the petition as to when the petitioner went to the office of respondent No. 3 – trust to tender the withdrawal application, the said letter was not accepted and, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to send the letter by Registered A.D. on 28th September, 1999 but the office of respondent No. 3 trust did not accept the delivery from the postal department it is not necessary to discuss the same. It appears that subsequently the petitioner went on leave on 29th September, 1999 for a period of 2½ days and when the petitioner wanted to resume duty on 04th October, 1999, the petitioner was prevented from signing the muster roll after being informed that the petitioner had already been relieved and the charge had been handed over to another person. It is also averred that on 30th September, 1999, the petitioner was informed that the application for voluntary retirement had been accepted and the letter was also affixed at the residential house of the petitioner which was closed at the relevant point of time. 4. It is also averred that on 30th September, 1999, the petitioner was informed that the application for voluntary retirement had been accepted and the letter was also affixed at the residential house of the petitioner which was closed at the relevant point of time. 4. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts that the present controversy has been brought before the Court. On behalf of respondent No. 3 – trust, Secretary has tendered affidavit-in-reply disputing various factual averments. 5. Learned advocates appearing for both the sides have been heard at length. 6. The position in law is no longer in dispute. By a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has laid down that the jural relationship between an employer and an employee does not terminate automatically upon tendering of an application for voluntary retirement more so, when the date for retirement is at a future point of time and before that the application is withdrawn by the employee. Retirement mentioned in the letter of voluntary retirement must take effect from the date specified therein and the employer cannot advance such date by accepting resignation from an earlier date when the employee concerned did not intend to retire from such earlier date. It is always open to an employee to withdraw the resignation/retirement letter before the same becomes effective. Albeit this is subject to the conditions of service or statutory provisions, if any, which may govern the parties. 7. Applying the aforesaid settled legal position to the facts of the case, it is apparent that before the effective date of retirement namely 30th September, 1999, the petitioner had withdrawn the application for voluntary retirement and hence, even if respondent No. 3 had accepted the application for retirement, the same would not be effective before 30th September, 1999. Any intervening correspondence in the direction of working out the pension payable to the petitioner would also have no relevance till the point of time the retirement actually takes place and, therefore, the act of respondent No. 3 in not permitting the petitioner to resume duties with effect from 01st October, 1999 cannot be sustained. 8. The petition is accordingly allowed. Rule made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.