JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Petitioner was working as Additional Assistant Engineer (E) under the Electrical Division, HPSEB, Nahan. On 31st July, 2010, he submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement (Annexure P-1) w.e.f. 1.11.2010, on account of adverse family circumstances. Such request was accepted by his employer vide communication dated 19th October, 2010 (Annexure P-6). However acceptance was conditional and relevant extract of such order reads as under;- Now, therefore, after taking into consideration the request of Er. Dinesh Kumar Additional Assistant Engineer (E) (DOB 24.4.1958) and in exercise of the power vested in the under Rule-48 A of CCS Pension Rules and Sr. No. 11 of Administrative Powers delegated vide Secretary, HPSEB, Shimla endorsement No. HPSEB (SECTT) 35-3/ 80-73214-73264 dated 26-02-80, the undersigned is hereby pleased to accept the request of Er. Dinesh Kumar, AAE(E) (DOB 20-4-1958) for voluntary retirement from the service of the Board w.e.f. 1-11-2010 (F.N.) subject to the condition that nothing is due from him no vigilance case is pending or being contemplated against the above named official and upto date verification of service. He shall be entitled to all pensionary benefits as admissible under the rules. (Emphasis supplied) It is not in dispute that no disciplinary proceedings were either contemplated or pending against the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that petitioner was allowed and under an obligation to discharge his duties upto 30th October, 2010. 2. However prior thereto, on 20th October, 2010 petitioner requested the authorities for withdrawal of his resignation submitted vide Annexure P-1. Communication to this effect is Annexure P-2. This request of his was summarily rejected by the employer vide communication dated 9th November, 2010 (Annexure P-9). Consequently, petitioner was ordered to have been retired from the service w.e.f. 1.11.2010 (Annexure P-8). Hence, petitioner has filed the present petition, assailing the office order dated 19.10.2010 (Annexure P-6) and communications dated 1.11.2010 and 9.11.2010 (Annexures P-8 and P-9). 3. The moot question which arises for consideration in the present writ petition is, as to whether it is open for the petitioner to withdraw his offer for voluntary retirement, in spite of the same having been accepted by the employer, but prior to the order of acceptance having become effective. 4. In my considered view, this proposition of law and the issue in question is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Shambhu Murari Sinha Vs. 4. In my considered view, this proposition of law and the issue in question is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Shambhu Murari Sinha Vs. Project and Development India and Another, (2000) 5 SCC 621 , wherein under identical circumstances, orders passed by the State, rejecting the employee's request for withdrawal of his resignation, after acceptance, but prior to the same becoming effective, was quashed. In the said case, an employee had exercised his right of voluntary retirement on 18.10.1995. The management accepted the same on 30th July, 1997 but did not relieve the employee from the service and allowed him to continue to work till 26.9.1997. However, prior to the said date i.e. on 7.8.1997, the employee requested for withdrawal of his offer of voluntary retirement and resignation. The Apex Court, while relying upon its earlier decisions rendered in J.N. Srivastava Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, (1998) 9 SCC 559 Power Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Pramod Kumar Bhatia, (1997) 4 SCC 280 and Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr., AIR 1987 SC 2354 held that in spite of acceptance of resignation it shall be open for an employee to withdraw his offer of resignation before the effective date. 5. In Dr. Prabha Atri Vs. The State of U.P. and Others, (2003) 1 SCC 701 the Apex Court has held that to constitute a resignation, it must be unconditional and intending to operate as such. 6. A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Bank of India and Others Vs. O.P. Swaranakar etc., (2003) 2 SCC 721 in a context where terms of Voluntary Retirement Scheme promoted by the Bank came up for consideration, has held that:- 113. The submission of the learned Attorney-General that as soon as an offer is made by an employee, the same would amount to resignation in praesenti cannot be accepted. The Scheme was in force for a fixed period. A decision by the authority was required to be taken and till a decision was taken, the jural relationship of employer and employee continued and the employees concerned would have been entitled to payment of all salaries and allowances etc. The Scheme was in force for a fixed period. A decision by the authority was required to be taken and till a decision was taken, the jural relationship of employer and employee continued and the employees concerned would have been entitled to payment of all salaries and allowances etc. Thus it cannot be said to be a case where the offer was given in praesenti but the same would be prospective in nature keeping in view of the fact that it was come into force at a later date and that too subject to acceptance thereof by the employer... 7. The Apex Court in North Zone Cultural Center and Another Vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar, (2003) 5 SCC 455 has further held that non-communication of acceptance of a resignation does not make the same inoperative, provided there is in fact acceptance before withdrawal of the same. 8. In Reserve Bank of India and Another Vs. Cecil Dennis Solomon and Another, (2004) 9 SCC 461 the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the expressions "superannuation", "voluntary retirement", "compulsory retirement" and "resignation" which were answered in the following terms:- The expressions "superannuation"', "voluntary retirement", "compulsory retirement" and "resignation" convey different connotations. Voluntary retirement and resignation involve voluntary acts on the part of the employee to leave service. Though both involve voluntary acts, they operate differently. Resignation can be tendered at any time but voluntary retirement can be sought for only after rendering the requisite period of qualifying service. In case of the former, normally retiral benefits are denied but in case of the latter, the same is not denied. In case of the former, permission or notice is not mandated, while in case of the latter, permission of the employer concerned is a requisite condition. Though resignation is a bilateral concept, and becomes effect on acceptance by the competent authority, yet the general rule can be displaced by express provisions to the contrary. 9. Later on the Apex Court in State Bank of Patiala Vs. Phoolpati, (2005) 3 SCC 88 has held that:- A complete and effective act of resigning office is one which severs the link of the resign or with his office and terminates his tenure. 10. To the same effect is the decision rendered by the Apex Court in The Secretary, Technical Education, U.P. and Others Vs. Lalit Mohan Upadhyay and Another, (2007) 4 SCC 492 . 11. 10. To the same effect is the decision rendered by the Apex Court in The Secretary, Technical Education, U.P. and Others Vs. Lalit Mohan Upadhyay and Another, (2007) 4 SCC 492 . 11. Earlier the Apex Court in Srikantha S.M. Vs. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 314 held that:- The term "resignation" has not been defined in the Service Rules. According to the dictionary meaning, however, "resignation" means spontaneous relinquishment of one's own right. It is conveyed by the Latin maxim Resignation est juris propii spontanea refutation. (Resignation is a spontaneous relinquishment of one's own right.) In relation to an office, resignation connotes the act of giving up or relinquishing the office. "To relinquish an office" means "to cease to hold the office" or "to leave the job" or "to leave the position". "To case to hold office", or "to lose hold of the office" implies to "detach", "unfasten", "undo" or "untie" "the binding knot or link" which holds one to the office and the obligations and privileges that go with it. 12. In fact way back in the year 1978, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Gopal Chandra Misra and Others, (1978) 2 SCC 301 had the occasion to deal with a question as to whether a sitting Judge of the High Court is competent to withdraw his letter expressing his intention to resign from office with effect from a future date. On facts the concerned Judge had submitted such letter of resignation dated 7.5.1977 to Hon'ble the President of India, intending his resignation to be effective from 1.8.1977. But prior to the said date, vide letter dated 15.7.1977, he wrote another letter conveying that his communication dated 7.5.1977 be treated as null and void. By a majority decision, the Apex Court held that:- 70. In the light of all that has been said above, we hold that the letter, dated May 7, 1977 addressed by appellant 2 to the President, both in point of law and substance, amounts but to a proposal or notice of intention to resign at a future date (August 1, 1977) and not being an absolute, complete resignation operative with immediate effect, could be, and, in fact had been validly withdrawn by the said appellant through his letter, dated July 15, 1977, conveyed to the President. 13. Mr. 13. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, learned Counsel for the respondents, while opposing the petition, has invited my attention to the decision rendered by the three Judge Bench in Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India (UOI), AIR 1969 SC 180 . I have carefully considered the said decision and in my considered view, the ratio laid down therein is not applicable to the instant facts. There, the Hon'ble Court was dealing with a case where an I.A.S. Officer had tendered his resignation without specifying the date from which he had intended the same to be effective. Hence, the decision is not applicable to the instant case. Unlike the said facts, in the instance case, petitioner had specifically sought voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1st November, 2010 which request of his was so accepted by his employer and prior to the said date petitioner had requested for withdrawal of such request for voluntary retirement. 14. It is also seen that order rejecting the petitioner's request for withdrawal of his resignation also does not assign any reason. 15. Consequently for all the aforesaid reasons, petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 1.11.2010 and 9.11.2010 (Annexures P-8 and P-9) are quashed. 16. Noticeably under the orders of this Court, petitioner is now serving with the respondents in the very same capacity in which he had tendered his resignation and nothing adverse has been found against him. In view of the same, order dated 19.10.2010 (Annexure P-6) is also quashed. Petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits, except for back wages, as per his statement made through his Counsel vide order dated 13.10.2011. In view of the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.