Order Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to respondent no. 2 to allow voluntary retirement to him from Government service, in respect of which, he claims to have been submitted his first application on 15.4.2007. 2. The respondents have filed their counter affidavits in which they do not deny that such application of the petitioner was received in the Department on 22.6.2008. The stand of the respondents is that, on his transfer, petitioner had joined under the Civil Surgeon, Samastipur in August, 2005. Thereafter he absented himself and submitted his application for voluntary retirement which was received in the Department only in 2008. Hence, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents, on instructions from the Civil Surgeon, Samastipur who is present in Court, that prior to submission of his application for voluntary retirement, he was unauthorizedly absent from duty. It is submitted that the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement was on the basis that he had completed 25 years of service, whereas on the last date of his working in the Sadar Hospital, Samastipur he had only completed 24 years of service. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Rules of the Government a Government employee becomes entitled for voluntary retirement on completion of 20 years of service. He submits that in any casein August, 2005 petitioner had completed more than 20 years of service. Hence, even if he had submitted his application for voluntary retirement late, the same had to be considered and accepted by the respondents. Till now the respondents have not initiated any proceeding against the petitioner for the said alleged absence from duty by him. Hence, they cannot now reject the claim of the petitioner for voluntary retirement and take any action against him. He submits that the application of the voluntary retirement does not need specific acceptance or any formal order by the Government. Since no proceeding was pending against the petitioner, the respondents have no right to reject such application. In support of this submission, learned• counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Krishna Kumar Mallick vs. State of Bihar [ 2011 (3) PLJR 593 ]. Since no proceeding was pending against the petitioner, the respondents have no right to reject such application. In support of this submission, learned• counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Krishna Kumar Mallick vs. State of Bihar [ 2011 (3) PLJR 593 ]. He submits that, in view of the said judgment of this Court, the respondents have no option but to accept the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement and grant him consequential benefits. 4. It is true that there is no evidence on record that the petitioner had continued in service after August, 2005, but it is also true that there is nothing 01 record to show that the respondents he d initiated any action against the petitioner before his application for voluntary retirement was received in the Department. However, the application has remained pending and the respondents have not passed any orders accepting the same with orders for cones quential benefits to the petitioner. As per the said judgment, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, no formal order of acceptance is required from the Government on an application for voluntary retirement, if no proceeding is pending from before. Still a formal order is required so that the consequential change of status of an employee is notified/acknowledged and the monetary benefits of the same is allowed to the applicant. 5. Since the respondents have not taken any decision and have not passed final orders, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Department of Health to pass specific order on the application of the petitioner in accordance with law, positively within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. It goes without saying that the Principal Secretary shall look into the legal aspect of the matter also as emanating from the decisions of this Court including the one relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner.