ORDER The writ petitioner seeks for a writ of Certiorari to quash B.P.No(P&G-Per) Rt.313, dated 30.01.1999 passed by the second respondent and to direct the respondents to regularise the period of service of the petitioner from 08.08.1969 to 15.02.1970 as compulsory waiting period and to treat the period from 27.02.1989 till 30.04.1997 as duty period. The petitioner also seeks for a direction to treat that the petitioner retired from service on 30.04.1997 and to grant all consequential benefits treating that the petitioner retired from service on 30.04.1997. 2. The petitioner started his career as a clerk and ultimately retired as Assistant Divisional Engineer from APSEB. He joined in 1961 in the electricity department. He was later deputed to APSEB and continued his career with APSEB. 3. The petitioner assumed charge as Section Officer-cum- Additional Assistant Engineer, North Section, Langar House, Hyderabad on 06.06.1968. The Section Office, North Section, Langar House, Hyderabad was burnt by the agitators of Telangana agitation on 04.06.1969. The petitioner brought it to the notice of the authorities. On 28.06.1969 the Divisional Engineer, Operation, Rural Hyderabad submitted a report to the Superintending Engineer, Operation, Rural Hyderabad that there was loss of property estimated at Rs.4,759/- and that the material burnt was worth Rs.4,669/-. Almost all the records of the section office were destroyed according to the report. The Divisional Engineer recommended that the lost property may be written off. 4. The petitioner was subsequently transferred on 19.07.1969. The petitioner submitted an application on 04.08.1969 requesting time to handover charge of the North Section in view of difficulties encountered which arose on account of the burning of the entire records of the northern section. On 19.08.1969, the Divisional Engineer instructed the petitioner to handover the section on or before the next day. The petitioner submitted further report on 23.08.1969 to grant one and a half months time to enable the petitioner to handover charge of the section. Through orders, dated 03.09.1969, the Divisional Engineer refused to grant further time and directed the petitioner to handover charge immediately. The petitioner however submitted yet another representation on 09.09.1969 to grant further time. The Superintending Engineer in the meanwhile directed the petitioner to await further orders through orders dated 23.09.1969. On 25.10.1969, the petitioner approached the Chief Engineer Electricity, Operation, Hyderabad in connection with the handing over of charge. 5. The petitioner however submitted yet another representation on 09.09.1969 to grant further time. The Superintending Engineer in the meanwhile directed the petitioner to await further orders through orders dated 23.09.1969. On 25.10.1969, the petitioner approached the Chief Engineer Electricity, Operation, Hyderabad in connection with the handing over of charge. 5. The petitioner was kept on compulsory wait from 19.07.1969 on which date the petitioner initially received transfer orders till 25.10.1969 on which date the petitioner approached the Chief Engineer Electricity, Operation. 6. In February, 1989, the petitioner submitted representation seeking for voluntary retirement with effect from the afternoon of 31.05.1989. However no action was taken on the said representation of the petitioner. On 05.07.1993, proceedings were issued that on expiry of the leave, the petitioner was deemed to have been posted in the same position from which position he went on leave. On 30.04.1997 the petitioner reached his superannuation. 7. While things stood thus, curiously in 1998, while APSEB was winding up, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.01.1998 to explain about the loss of material worth Rs.6,714.80 ps. The petitioner claimed that he submitted a detailed explanation. On 22.10.1998, entire charges levelled against the petitioner for dereliction of duty were dropped and the disciplinary proceedings were closed. The grouse of the petitioner however is that when the pension papers of the petitioner were drawn up, it was shown as if the petitioner retired from service on the afternoon of 31.05.1989 and that gratuity was ordered payable as if the petitioner was in service till 31.05.1989 only. 8. Sri Abu Akram, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the voluntary retirement sought for was not acted upon by the employer and that after allowing the petitioner to retire on 30.04.1997 on attaining superannuation, the employer cannot now turn round and claim that the petitioner retired from service on 31.05.1989 on account of the voluntary retirement scheme. It may be noticed that the petitioner retired from service without any enquiry hanging over his head as the alleged charges were dropped. There was no other enquiry pending against the petitioner. Indeed, the petitioner would appear to have sought for voluntary retirement with effect from 31.05.1989. However, there is no evidence that the request of the petitioner was accepted by the employer. There was no other enquiry pending against the petitioner. Indeed, the petitioner would appear to have sought for voluntary retirement with effect from 31.05.1989. However, there is no evidence that the request of the petitioner was accepted by the employer. The respondents failed to show any proceeding under which the request for voluntary retirement of the petitioner was accepted. In the absence of evidence that the voluntary retirement proposals of the petitioner were accepted, it shall be considered that the petitioner was in service. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the proceedings dated 05.07.1993 under which posting orders were issued to the petitioner directing him to join in the same place after expiry of leave. Thus by 05.07.1993, the petitioner was in service. In the absence of circumstances leading to retirement of the petitioner from service thereafter prematurely, there is no ground to deny the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner retired from service on 30.04.1997 on attaining superannuation. It is not even the case of the respondents that the petitioner would attain superannuation on 30.04.1997. That being so, I have no hesitation to accept the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner retired from service on 30.04.1997. Needless to state that the petitioner shall be entitled to all the service benefits till 30.04.1997. 10. Curiously, it is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has not been paid salary till 30.04.1997. It would appear that the petitioner received salary till the date on which he attained superannuation. The claim of the petitioner is that the pension payment order shows as if the petitioner retired from service with effect from 31.05.1989 so much so the calculation of the pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits have dwindled. I consider that the retirement benefits of the petitioner shall be worked out treating that the petitioner has retired from service on 30.04.1997. There is another additional factor in this case. From 08.08.1969 till 15.02.1970, the petitioner was kept on compulsory wait and that the same had not been regularised. As the petitioner is already retired from service, I consider that it would be just and proper to direct the respondents to regularise the compulsory wait period. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is therefore allowed. It is held that the petitioner has retired from service on 30.04.1997. As the petitioner is already retired from service, I consider that it would be just and proper to direct the respondents to regularise the compulsory wait period. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is therefore allowed. It is held that the petitioner has retired from service on 30.04.1997. His service and retirement benefits shall be worked out accordingly. The respondent shall consider regularising the compulsory wait period of the petitioner from 08.08.1969 till 15.02.1970 within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.