JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 26/9/2011 (Ann.5) whereby the respondents have despite his prayer for review of the notice of voluntary retirement has retired him from service w.e.f. 1/10/2011. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that petitioner was appointed with the respondent-department on the post of Lower Division Clerk on 21/5/1982. Petitioner was posted in the office of Sub Divisional Officer, District Sawaimadhopur. It was after 29 years of service that one Shri Ishwar Singh Rathore was posted in August 2011 as Sub Divisional Officer, District Sawaimadhopur. According to the petitioner, S.D.O. has required petitioner to discharge some additional work. He wanted to stay of petitioner in the office till upto 10.00 p.m., whereas other officers were permitted to go after office hours. The S.D.O. even compelled petitioner to work on Holidays. Petitioner could not carry burden of these heavy duties and due to these circumstances and being harassed by his superior, he submitted application on 19/9/2011 (Ann.3) out of frustration seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1/10/2011 but after realising his mistake, he immediately submitted another application on 26/9/2011 (Ann.4) for withdrawal of that application dated 19/9/2011 (Ann.3) through proper channel requesting not to retire him from service. Immediately on receipt of the application dated 19/9/2011 (Ann.3) seeking voluntary retirement, the respondents passed the order dated 26/9/2011 (Ann.5) voluntarily retiring petitioner w.e.f. 1/10/2011 without considering his subsequent application 26/9/2011 (Ann.4) for withdrawal of that application dated 19/9/2011 (Ann.3). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner specifically mentioned in the application dated 26/9/2011 (Ann.4) that he submitted earlier application dated 19/9/2011 (Ann.3) seeking voluntary retirement out of frustration only due to harassment being made by the S.D.O. Sawaimadhopur. When he realised his mistake, he immediately submitted another application on 26/9/2011 (Ann.4) for withdrawal of voluntary retirement. He further mentioned in the said application that he has large family maintain and huge family responsibilities. When he realised his mistake, he immediately submitted another application on 26/9/2011 (Ann.4) for withdrawal of voluntary retirement. He further mentioned in the said application that he has large family maintain and huge family responsibilities. Learned counsel submitted that though petitioner submitted application seeking voluntary retirement on 19/9/2011 (Ann.3) in accordance with Rule 50(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short, the "Rules of 1996") but he immediately submitted another application on 26/9/2011 (Ann.4), which the respondents received the same well in time before accepting his earlier application 19/9/2011 (Ann.3) but the respondents made him voluntarily retired from service w.e.f. 1/10/2011 vide order dated 26/9/2011 (Ann.5), which is absolutely illegal. It is settled law that employee has locus standi to withdraw the proposal before date of retirement is reached. In support of his argument, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India & Anr. : AIR 1999 SC 1571 , Division Bench judgment of this Court in Devi Dayal Gupta v. Sambhar Salts Limited & Ors. (DBSAW No.1055/2007) decided on 2/9/2008 & Single Bench judgment of this Court in Rajendra Mishra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.4351/2008) decided on 11/10/2011 . 4. Per contra, Shri Dinesh Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General opposed the writ petition and cited the judgment in rebuttal of constitutional bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. Gopal Chandra Misra and Others : (1978) 2 SCC 301 and argued that once resignation has been tendered, it cannot be withdrawn. He has also relied on another Supreme Court judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Raghuvir Singh Narang and Another : (2010) 5 SCC 335 and argued that voluntary retirement application of the petitioner was accepted at his request therefore, he was estopped from withdrawing his earlier request seeking voluntary retirement. By the time, subsequent request of the petitioner was received seeking withdrawal of voluntary retirement, his earlier application seeking voluntary retirement had already been acted upon therefore his voluntary retirement had become finalised. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the material available on record and scanned the case law cited on the subject. 6. By the time, subsequent request of the petitioner was received seeking withdrawal of voluntary retirement, his earlier application seeking voluntary retirement had already been acted upon therefore his voluntary retirement had become finalised. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the material available on record and scanned the case law cited on the subject. 6. The controversy raised in this petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments of this Court as also by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments. Even though the petitioner had made application in accordance with Rule 50(1) of the Rules of 1996 with the prayer seeking voluntary retirement and though the application seeking voluntary retirement was accepted by passing appropriate order to retire him on a particular date, then also, petitioner had a legal right to revoke his request seeking voluntary retirement before the said date arrived. In the present case, though petitioner submitted application seeking voluntary retirement on 19/9/2011 (Ann.3) in accordance with Rule 50(1) of the Rules of 1996 but he immediately submitted another application on 26/9/2011 (Ann.4), which the respondents received well in time before accepting his earlier application 19/9/2011 (Ann.3) but the respondents made him voluntarily retired from service w.e.f. 1/10/2011 vide order dated 26/9/2011 (Ann.5) in a most arbitrary manner. Therefore, there was no legal basis for the respondents then not to entertain the subsequent request of the petitioner. The petitioner has clearly stated that he now in the circumstances in view of the fact that he was only earning member in the family having huge family responsibilities as well as the fact that 6 years are still left of his service therefore, he having had change of mind decided to withdraw his earlier request seeking voluntary retirement. 7. Division Bench of this Court in State of Raj. & Ors. v. Achala Ram : 2005(1) W.L.C. (Raj.) 796 as well as Union of India v. Ex.Group Capt.M.S. Bhatnagar : 2008(3) RLW 2017 (Raj.) while relying on number of Supreme Court judgments referred to therein held that an employee has right to revoke his request for voluntary retirement before effective date of such retirement is reached and respondents could not deny his request in this behalf. Supreme Court in J.N. Srivastava supra held that an employee has locus standi to withdraw the proposal before date of retirement is reached. Supreme Court in J.N. Srivastava supra held that an employee has locus standi to withdraw the proposal before date of retirement is reached. Fact that employee has given up charge of post as per his memo relinquishing charge, does not estop him from withdrawing his voluntary retirement notice and the employee should be treated to be in service till date of his service. 8. Judgments cited by the learned Additional Advocate General are distinguishable both on facts as well as law. The constitutional bench judgment of Supreme Court in Gopal Chandra Misra supra was related to Judge of the High Court, who resigned by writing a letter to the President of India seeking resignation w.e.f. 1/8/1977 and thereafter he wrote another letter by which he revoked his resignation and prayed that his communication containing the resignation may be treated as null and void. In those facts, it was held by the Supreme Court that the resignation contemplated by Article 217(1)(a) is purely a unilateral act and takes effect ipso facto once intention to resign is communicated to the President. Resignation once submitted and communicated to the President cannot be recalled even though it may be prospective in nature so as to come into effect from a future date. That judgment consisted its own facts and Supreme Court interpreted provisions of Article 217 of the Constitution of India. I am afraid, it hardly applies in the facts of the present case. 9. In Raghuvir Singh Narang supra also, it was a case arose out of a different factual context. Employee in that case was working as Development Officer under the New India Assurance Co.Ltd., which floated a scheme by the name of 'Special Voluntary Retirement Package'. It specifically provided an employee for withdrawal option of SVRP once made and in view of the statutory provision, general principles of contract that an offer could be withdrawn at any time before its acceptance stands excluded. 10. It specifically provided an employee for withdrawal option of SVRP once made and in view of the statutory provision, general principles of contract that an offer could be withdrawn at any time before its acceptance stands excluded. 10. Herein, proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 govern the field, which provides that:- "(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 automatically become effective from the date of expiry of the said period." 11. From the language of the rule, it is thus clear that petitioner submitted withdrawal application well within time on 26/9/2011 (Ann.4) itself before accepting his earlier application seeking voluntary retirement dated 19/9/2011 (Ann.3), vide order dated 26/9/2011 (Ann.5), meaning thereby, within the currency of the notice. 12. In view of the above facts, the action of the respondents in not entertaining the subsequent application of the petitioner dated 26/9/2011 (Ann.4) for revocation of his earlier request seeking voluntary retirement dated 19/9/2011 (Ann.3) and voluntarily retiring him from service vide order dated 26/9/2011 (Ann.5) w.e.f. 1/10/2011 and that too without assigning any justified reason as per ratio of the aforesaid judgments of this Court, was wholly illegal and arbitrary. 13. That being so, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed. Impugned-order dated 26/09/2011 (Annexure-5) is accordingly quashed and set-aside. Petitioner is held entitled to get all consequential benefits including the backwages. 14. The compliance of this order be made within three months from the date certified copy of this order is produced before the respondents.Writ Petition Allowed. *******