Judgment Sahidullah Munshi, J. This writ petition has been filed challenging a Resolution of the Managing Committee held on 16th July, 2011 under meeting No.258 and the letter No.954 dated 23rd August, 2011 issued by the Secretary of Tinna Ilampur Panchanan Smriti Vidyamandir, P.O. Tinna (Pandua) district Hooghly, whereby the managing Committee of the said school accepted the petitioner’s letter to allow her voluntary retirement made on 16th July, 2011 from the post of Assistant Teacher of the said school. Briefly, the petitioner’s case is that the petitioner joined the school as an Assistant Teacher in Bengali in 1989 and her appointment was also approved in the same year. The petitioner served the school for about 22 years. In 2004 the petitioner lost her only son who went abroad to pursue his degree, suddenly expired at an early age. In such a disappointed condition of mind, the petitioner became irritant and at times she thought of leaving the job for medical reason also because she was suffering from high blood pressure and other ailments. The petitioner wrote a letter on 16th July, 2011 addressing it to the Secretary, Tinna Ilampur Panchanan Smriti Vidyamandir, P.O. Tinna (Pandua) district Hooghly, to take voluntary retirement from service allegedly under the provocation of some colleagues. By such letter she requested the school authority to accept her prayer for voluntary retirement and after compliance of all formalities the school authority should proceed for submitting necessary papers for pension of the petitioner. She again wrote letters on 23rd July, 2011 addressing it to the Secretary and Headmaster of the school requesting for acceptance of her request for voluntary retirement. Subsequently, by a letter dated 25th July, 2011 addressing it to the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school the petitioner intimated that she intended to withdraw her earlier letters requesting for voluntary retirement. She has explained the circumstances under which she tendered the said letter for voluntary retirement. She stated that in 2004 her only son who was pursuing his medical study abroad, expired at an early age. She has also stated that on 14th and 15th July, 2011 she had a high blood pressure which prevented her to be present in the school and all of a sudden she wrote the said letter on 16th July, 2011 followed by another letter dated 23rd July, 2011 praying for voluntary retirement. She has also stated that on 14th and 15th July, 2011 she had a high blood pressure which prevented her to be present in the school and all of a sudden she wrote the said letter on 16th July, 2011 followed by another letter dated 23rd July, 2011 praying for voluntary retirement. Ultimately, the petitioner made an application to the District Inspector of Schools on 9th August, 2011 and made a detailed representation about the unfortunate tendering of her letter praying for voluntary retirement before the Secretary of the Managing Committee. She stated that on 25th July, 2011 she withdrew her letters by which she prayed for voluntary retirement. On and from 26th July, 2011 to 6th August, 2011 she attended the school and took classes. On 26th July, 2011 she signed the attendance register but on and from 27th July, 2011 to 6th August, 2011 she was not allowed to sign the attendance register. She, accordingly, requested the District Inspector of Schools to see that the petitioner should be able to resume her classes in the school and she should be allowed to sign the attendance register. The petitioner also wrote another letter on 11th August, 2011 addressing it to the District Inspector of Schools and complained against the school Management. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner tendered the letter praying for voluntary retirement and the said letter itself is not a letter of resignation. He submits that she handed over the letter to the School Management because she became irritant and she was not mentally well. She became mentally depressed because she had lost her only grown up son at an early age and that apart, her colleagues were not behaving properly with her. The letter by which she sought to pray for voluntary retirement was not acted upon because until and unless such letter is accepted the Managing Committee cannot act on the basis thereof. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, usually meetings of the Managing Committee are held once in a month and 16th July, 2011 was also a day fixed for the meeting of Managing Committee. This was fixed earlier. According to Mr. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, usually meetings of the Managing Committee are held once in a month and 16th July, 2011 was also a day fixed for the meeting of Managing Committee. This was fixed earlier. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, since 16th July, 2011 was a date prefixed for meeting of the Managing Committee and since the petitioner submitted her letter praying for voluntary retirement on 16th July, 2011 the same cannot be considered by the Managing Committee at the said meeting which was fixed on 16th July, 2011 itself because there was no specific agenda either for acceptance or rejection of the petitioner’s letter by which she sought for voluntary retirement. Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that without specific agenda any deliberation is made in a meeting the same cannot be held to be a legal proceeding. Therefore, in all probabilities, there was no chance for the Managing Committee to accept the said letter dated 16th July, 2011, in the meeting of 16th July, 2011 itself. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, the said letter dated 16th July, 2011 submitted by the petitioner was never accepted and since Managing Committee is the authority to accept the letter praying for voluntary retirement the same can take effect only after it is accepted in a validly convened meeting with specific agenda on the issue in question. Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that not only it was not accepted by the Managing Committee, the petitioner herself wrote a letter on 25th July, 2011 withdrawing her letters of 16th July, and 23rd July, 2011. Therefore, once the withdrawal letter was received by the Managing Committee, they should allow the petitioner to resume her duties in the school. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, the Resolution so adopted by the Managing Committee on 16th July, 2011 accepting the petitioner’s letter praying for voluntary retirement, is illegal and not binding upon the petitioner. Mr. Bhattacharjee further submits that it is apparent on the face of the record that the letter praying for voluntary retirement was never acted upon because had that been given effect to, the District Inspector of Schools ought to have called for the necessary papers from the school authority for preparation of petitioner’s pension. Mr. Bhattacharjee further submits that it is apparent on the face of the record that the letter praying for voluntary retirement was never acted upon because had that been given effect to, the District Inspector of Schools ought to have called for the necessary papers from the school authority for preparation of petitioner’s pension. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Clause 8 of West Bengal Recognized Non-Government Educational Institution Employees (Death-cum-Retirement) Scheme, 1981 which says that an employee shall be entitled to pension on voluntary retirement after complying 20 years’ of qualifying service. He submits that since no steps has been taken to this effect by the District Inspector of Schools, it can be safely concluded that her voluntary retirement was never accepted. Mr. Bhattacharjee has relied upon a judgment in the case of Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation Limited – Vs. – Suman Behari Sharma reported in (1996)4 SCC 584 . Relying on paragraph 8 of the said judgment it has been submitted that an employee seeking voluntary retirement, however, has a right to make a request in that behalf and his request would become effective only if he is permitted to retire. Therefore, according to him, simply by tendering a letter praying for voluntary retirement an employee does not stand retired from the date of tendering of such letter. It has to be accepted in due process of law. Mr. Bhattacharjee has relied upon another judgment in the case of State Bank of India & Anr. – Vs. – Sanjeev Kalra & Ors. which relates to an employee’s voluntary retirement under a particular Scheme. Paragraph 61 of the said judgment is relevant for the present purpose which says – “The request for voluntary retirement would not take effect in praesenti but in future …” Mr. Bhattacharjee has relied upon another judgment in the case of Sambhu Murari Sinha – Vs. – Project & Development India Ltd. & Ors. reported in AIR 2002 SC 1341 . In the said case the appellant/employee applied for voluntary retirement under a Scheme which was accepted by the Management with condition that the release memo along with details particulars will follow. The appellant/employee sent a letter withdrawing his option from the VRS by registered post but no response was received by him from the respondent. In the said case the appellant/employee applied for voluntary retirement under a Scheme which was accepted by the Management with condition that the release memo along with details particulars will follow. The appellant/employee sent a letter withdrawing his option from the VRS by registered post but no response was received by him from the respondent. Again, another letter was sent by the appellant withdrawing his option from the Scheme. This letter was received but there was no reply from the respondent. The respondent Council issued a memorandum releasing the appellant from the service of the Council with effect from a particular date. The appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the release order which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and it was upheld by the Division Bench. The order of the Division Bench was assailed before the Apex Court and the Apex Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment holding that employee could withdraw from the Scheme. It has been held that the jural relationship of employee and employer between the appellant and the respondents did not come to an end on the date of acceptance of the voluntary retirement and said relationship continued. It has been further held that the respondents could not have refused to accept the letter of the appellant as it was sent before the jural relationship of employee and employer came to an end. Mr. Sadananda Ganguly, learned standing counsel appeared for the State and submitted that although, District Inspector of Schools was approached by the Managing Committee by a letter dated 26th August, 2011 to accept the resignation letter for voluntary retirement but the District Inspector of Schools has not done anything so far. The District Inspector of Schools has received the communication of the Managing Committee requesting to take further steps on the basis of the application for voluntary retirement as also the petitioner’s application and further communications and representations to the effect that she has withdrawn her letter tendering voluntary retirement. As per instruction of the District Inspector of Schools it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the State that the District Inspector of Schools ha also not taken any steps for preparation of pension papers of the petitioner consequently to her application dated 16th July, 2011 requesting for her voluntary retirement. Mr. As per instruction of the District Inspector of Schools it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the State that the District Inspector of Schools ha also not taken any steps for preparation of pension papers of the petitioner consequently to her application dated 16th July, 2011 requesting for her voluntary retirement. Mr. Bari, learned Counsel appearing for the school authority, submits that the petitioner tendered her application praying for voluntary retirement on 16th July, 2011 and since there was a pre-fixed meeting on that day under miscellaneous head, the Managing Committee considered the said letter for voluntary retirement and incidentally they took a Resolution accepting her request for voluntary retirement. The application dated 16th July, 2011 was accepted in a validly convened meeting of the Managing Committee and it will have its natural effect. Since the letter dated 16th July, 2011 has been accepted in the meeting of the Managing Committee there is no point of return and the school authority can co-operate with the petitioner to the extent of submitting of necessary papers before the District Inspector of Schools for approval of the Government for release of the petitioner’s pension in her favour. But the Resolution which has been adopted in the meeting of 16th July, 2011 cannot be said to be invalid because the meeting was a valid meeting. Mr. Bari has further submitted that the petitioner has consciously submitted her letter praying for voluntary retirement and the Managing Committee, after adopting a Resolution, forwarded the same to the District Inspector of Schools for follow up action. Therefore, there is no way out for the petitioner from changing her mind but to accept the voluntary retirement and she should pursue for release of her pension. Mr. Bari further submits that Managing Committee is not in a position to review the Resolution already adopted on 16th July, 2011 because the decision taken in the meeting of 16th July, 2011 has already been confirmed in the next meeting dated 20th August, 2011. In support of his submission Mr. Bari relies on a judgment in the case of G. Kailashapathi Rao – Vs. – Committee of Bandlamudi Hanumayamma reported in 1994(2) SLR 554. This is a judgment of a Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court. In support of his submission Mr. Bari relies on a judgment in the case of G. Kailashapathi Rao – Vs. – Committee of Bandlamudi Hanumayamma reported in 1994(2) SLR 554. This is a judgment of a Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court. In this case, the petitioner sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, so far order of direction directing the respondent to continue him as a Principal of a college declaring the Resolution dated 20.9.1993 as illegal. The petitioner was appointed as Principal of BHS Degree College for Women and he had taken charge on 27.2.1991 and that he had been working as such from the inception of the college. Secretary of the college took from him a letter of resignation dated 14.9.1993 stating that it would come into force with effect from 1.11.1993 and that on 20th September, 1993 the Secretary again obtained another letter from him that the resignation was to come into force from 1.10.1993 onwards. On 24.9.1993 he wrote a letter to the Secretary withdrawing his letters of resignation dated 14.9.1993 and 28.9.1993 obtained from him and informed the Secretary that he would continue to work in the college as Principal. In these given facts Court disbelieved the withdrawal of the petitioner’s letter of resignation addressed to the Secretary because there was no explanation. Comparing to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said reported judgment has no bearing in the present case. In the present case the letter of withdrawal was given by the petitioner to the concerned authorities on 25th July, 2011. In the facts and circumstances of this case I hold that the decision in the case of Sambhu Murari Sinha (supra) has a direct bearing and relying on the principle laid down therein I hold that the jural relationship between the employee and the employer did not come to an end on 16th July, 2011. In the facts and circumstances of this case I hold that the decision in the case of Sambhu Murari Sinha (supra) has a direct bearing and relying on the principle laid down therein I hold that the jural relationship between the employee and the employer did not come to an end on 16th July, 2011. Particularly, when the petitioner’s letter of withdrawal made on 25th July, 2011 was never considered by the Managing Committee, although, there was a meeting on 20th August, 2011 rather by a letter dated 26th August, 2011 the Managing Committee wrote to the District Inspector of Schools to take necessary action in view of the Resolution adopted by the Managing Committee in its meeting No.258 dated 16th July, 2011 as it appears from a letter dated 26th August, 2011 handed over to me by the learned Counsel appearing for the school authority. Having heard the submission on behalf of the respective parties, materials disclosed and the judgment cited before me this appears to me that submission made by Mr. Bhattacharjee has much substance. The Managing Committee in a hot haste placed the letter of 16th July, 2011 in the meeting of the selfsame day without there being any scope for preparing any agenda for consideration of the said letter. Although, in a hurry, the said letter dated 16th July, 2011 was considered on the selfsame day, but it is not known why the petitioner’s letter of 25th July, 2011 was not placed in the next meeting of 20th August, 2011, however, it has been submitted by Mr. Bari that the minutes and proceedings of the meeting dated 16th July, 2011 was confirmed by the Managing Committee in its next meeting held on 20th August, 2011. I hold that the Managing Committee ought not to have been in such a hurry to take a decision for acceptance of the letter of the petitioner who opted for voluntary retirement by her letter dated 16th July, 2011 and that too, the said Resolution was adopted in a very unusual and irregular manner. I hold that the Managing Committee ought not to have been in such a hurry to take a decision for acceptance of the letter of the petitioner who opted for voluntary retirement by her letter dated 16th July, 2011 and that too, the said Resolution was adopted in a very unusual and irregular manner. Since proceedings of the meeting held on 16th July, 2011, so far as it relates to the acceptance of the petitioner’s letter dated 16th July, 2011, for her voluntary retirement from service is rather irregular and unusual in nature I direct the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Hooghly, not to act on the basis of the said Resolution and to take a decision directing the school authority to allow the petitioner to resume her duty in the school concerned without any further delay. The District Inspector of Schools is directed to take such decision as early as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from date of communication of this order and to communicate thereafter his decision both to the school authority and the petitioner. The District Inspector of Schools, while taking such decision with regard to the petitioner’s resumption of duty, shall proceed in a manner as if there was no Resolution of the Managing Committee on 16th July, 2011, concerning the petitioner’s voluntary retirement. The writ application is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be delivered to the learned counsel for the parties, upon compliance of all usual formalities.