Judgment :- ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 30.04.2010 made in W.P.No.17979 of 2009, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant challenging the order, dated 11.06.2007 passed by the first respondent and the subsequent order, dated 13.07.2007, passed by the second respondent thereby rejecting the request made by the writ petitioner to go on voluntary retirement and treating the same as resignation from service, was dismissed. 2. It is the case of the appellant that he joined in the second respondent college as a Lab Assistant (Physics Department) on 25.06.1984 and thereafter, his appointment was approved by the first respondent, as per order dated 19.10.1985. and subsequently, he was promoted as Junior Assistant on 16.07.1989 and thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant on 01.04.1996 and after completing 22 years of service, he has decided to go on voluntary retirement, which was accepted by the second respondent, who forwarded the letter given by the appellant, dated 18.12.2006, seeking permission to go on voluntary retirement, to the first respondent for approval. According to the appellant, as per the terms and conditions of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the respondents ought to have considered his letter seeking permission to go on voluntary retirement, within a period of 90 days and if there is any infirmity or defect in the said letter, they should have informed him about the same and if there is no communication sent by them within the stipulated time of 90 days, it must be deemed to have been approved by the respondents. 3. It is also the case of the appellant that further, in the letter, dated 18.12.2006, he has mentioned that the said letter may be treated as three months' notice given in advance and from that date, he has stopped attending the College. 3. It is also the case of the appellant that further, in the letter, dated 18.12.2006, he has mentioned that the said letter may be treated as three months' notice given in advance and from that date, he has stopped attending the College. According to the appellant, he did not receive any communication from the respondents on his application seeking retirement under voluntary retirement scheme within the stipulated time and later, he received a letter, dated 13.07.2007 from the second respondent stating that they could not accept his request for voluntary retirement and the same could be treated as resignation from service, to which, the appellant sent a reply on 27.07.2007, stating that earlier he has submitted the letter dated 18.12.2006 only seeking permission to go on voluntary retirement and he never wanted to resign his job and if his request to go on voluntary retirement is not accepted, he could be allowed to continue the said job as Assistant. 4. It is the grievance of the appellant that only one post of Assistant is sanctioned by the first respondent for the second respondent College and while so, the second respondent, without relieving him, has issued an advertisement in a vernacular newspaper inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant and hence, challenging the orders passed by the respondents iun not permitting him to go on voluntary retirement, but treating the same as resignation from service, he has filed W.P.No.17979 of 2009. 5. The learned single Judge, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the writ petition by holding that the writ petitioner, without knowing the procedure for going on voluntary retirement, has unilaterally absented without serving his notice period and also did not offer the pay in lieu of three months notice and hence, no relief, as sought for by the writ petitioner, could be granted to him. Aggrieved of the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 7. We have gone through the entire materials placed on record. 8. Aggrieved of the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 7. We have gone through the entire materials placed on record. 8. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant against the order of the first respondent thereby rejecting the proposal submitted by the second respondent either to permit the appellant to retire from service under voluntary retirement scheme with all service benefits, based on the application submitted by him dated 18.12.2006, and as per G.O.Ms.No.829, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-3) Department, dated 26.08.1985 or allow him to work as an Assistant. 9. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant was appointed as a Laboratory Assistant (Physics Department), in the second respondent College on 25.06.1984, which is an aided Polytechnic and his appointment was also approved on 19.10.1985 by the competent authority. Subsequently, the appellant was promoted as Junior Assistant on 16.07.1989 and later, he was promoted as Assistant with effect from 01.04.1996. After completing 22 years of service, the appellant decided to go on voluntary retirement and hence, he approached the second respondent, who accepted his request and accordingly, he gave a letter dated 18.12.2006 to the second respondent to permit him to go on voluntary retirement. 10. It is to be seen that as per the terms and conditions of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the appellant has to give three months' notice in advance to avail the benefits of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and the letter submitted by the appellant in this regard has to be accepted by the respondents within a period of ninety days and if there was any defect, it should be informed to him for making necessary correction. Since there was no communication received from the respondents within the stipulated time, the appellant was deemed to got voluntary retirement. Since there was no communication received from the respondents within the stipulated time, the appellant was deemed to got voluntary retirement. When the appellant is expecting the letter of approval for going on voluntary retirement, suddenly, he received a communication from the second respondent, dated 13.07.2007, stating that they could not accept his request to go on voluntary retirement, but, the same could be treated as resignation from service, on receipt of which, a reply was given by the appellant on 27.07.2007 to the second respondent stating that earlier, he gave a letter dated 18.12.2006 to the effect that he intend to go only on voluntary retirement and never wanted to resign. 11. It is also to be noted that the communication of the second respondent, dated 13.07.2007 is the order, which is passed in consequence of the rejection of the proposal submitted by him to the first respondent for approval of the voluntary retirement of the appellant, dated 11.06.2007 aggrieved of the above, the writ petition is filed. 12. The learned single Judge, solely relying on the statement made in the counter affidavit, dismissed the writ petition, against which, the present writ appeal is filed contending that the learned single Judge has not considered the issue involved in the writ petition in right perspective; that one of the conditions to go on voluntary retirement is to give three months' notice and when the appellant remitted three months' salary, it amounts to satisfying the said condition and therefore, he is entitled for the grant of permission to go on voluntary retirement. 13. As seen from the communication, dated 19.01.2007, between respondents 1 and 2 regarding the approval of the proposal made by the appellant to go on voluntary retirement, after submitting the said proposal by the second respondent, the first respondent asked the following details:- i. Service record of the said person; ii. Produce evidence that there are no pending disciplinary proceedings and there is no scope to initiate any proceedings in future against the said person; iii. To show evidence that there is no payment pending to be paid to the Government; iv. To show evidence that there is no contract between Government and the concerned person; v. There is no case/proceedings are pending against the said person by the vigilance and anticorruption department and also get the certificate from the concerned department to that effect; vi. To show evidence that there is no payment pending to be paid to the Government; iv. To show evidence that there is no contract between Government and the concerned person; v. There is no case/proceedings are pending against the said person by the vigilance and anticorruption department and also get the certificate from the concerned department to that effect; vi. Whether the said person has paid the three months salary to the Government account and produces the evidence to that effect; vii. Whether the said person is relieved from services? If yes, which date? 14. Pursuant to the aforesaid communication, dated 19.01.2007, the second respondent, through his letter, dated 21.02.2007, gave a reply, on receipt of which, the first respondent, instead of approving the proposal submitted by the second respondent for grant of permission to the appellant to go on voluntary retirement, rejected the same, as per letter dated 11.06.2007, stating that the request of the appellant for voluntary retirement has been received on 18.12.2006 and he has been relieved on the same day and the remittance of three months' salary in lieu of the statutory notice, is not applicable in the case of voluntary retirement. It is also stated in the said letter that the second respondent ought to have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant for his unauthorised absence for such a long period and instead of doing so, the appellant was permitted to resume duty and thereafter, submitted the proposal for approval of the first respondent to go on voluntary retirement, which is not acceptable. 15. It is pertinent to mention here that the Scheme of voluntary retirement has been introduced only to enable the persons, who are desirous, to leave service after completion of the qualifying service. Therefore, though it is an admitted case that due to some personal problems, the appellant was unauthorisedly absent, for which period, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated, on the other hand, when he came forward with a petition after rendering the qualifying service to go on voluntary retirement, the first respondent after obtaining necessary details and information from the second respondent, instead of accepting the same, rejected the said request, which cannot be considered as legal. As the Voluntary Retirement Scheme is meant only for the welfare of the employees and except certain personal problems, nothing is stated against the appellant and hence, we consider it appropriate that it is not a fit case to reject the request of the appellant. 16. Therefore, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the reasons adopted by the learned single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, are not genuine to the issue involved in the writ petition. Hence, the order passed by the first respondent, dated 11.06.2006, and the consequential order passed by the second respondent, dated 13.07.2007, as well as the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 30.04.2010, made in W.P.No.17979 of 2009 are liable to be set aside and they are, accordingly, set aside. The writ appeal is allowed. Connected M.P. is closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.