Judgment S.R. Sen, J. This instant writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 05.10.12 passed by Lt. Colonel on behalf of the Director General Assam Rifles which is at Annexure-A2. The petitioner's case in nut shell is that "the petitioner was enrolled as Rifleman (GD) on 9.1.2004 in 22 BN Assam Rifles. The petitioner had achieved the best by being in good books of his superiors prior to 18/19.10.07. But consequent to his interview with the Commandant (Respondent No. 5) on 19.10.07 after the completion of the Bomb disposal Course successfully, it was as U-Turn, the Commandant (Respondent No. 5) has suddenly started imposing severe harassments upon the petitioner out of grudge/malafide/arbitrary action by organized conspiral connivance with the officers/staff subordinate to him, known to be as of the commandant concerned as one line target to get rid of the petitioner for the reasons not known to the aggrieved petitioner. Under the allegedly organized game plan the petitioner was hospitalized in the 22 Assam Rifles Battalion Head Hospital for more than 8 months. Thereafter, he was injected through vein which brought his mental conditions as miserable as diagnoses as Substance induced Psychosis by the medical authority and it was during resignation/voluntary retirement in the manner in which the competent authority (Respondent No. 5) desired. The petitioner had never submitted any such application either for resignation or for voluntary retirement. The Competent authority i.e. Respondent No. 5 misused his competency as the Commandant under whose command and controls the petitioner was serving/placed for deployment. Fabricating of such application for resignation by his staff/officer to the disadvantage of the petitioner is entirely illegal, as such that application cannot be taken to be at the free will and consent of the petitioner who was taking treatment while he was hospitalized for the aforesaid disease. The petitioner was discharged on 30.6.2008 on the alleged resignation from service illegally by the respondents. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition earlier before the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand which dismissed the same on 1.7.10 due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner was discharged on 30.6.2008 on the alleged resignation from service illegally by the respondents. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition earlier before the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand which dismissed the same on 1.7.10 due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. Again, fresh Writ Petition No. 6891/2010 was filed before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court and the same has been disposed of with a Judgment and Order dated 7.8.2012 for remanding the matter back to Assam Rifles for examination of the case of the petitioner afresh; whether his prayer for withdrawal of resignation from service and for reinstatement which he had made within the 90 days of acceptance of resignation and discharge from service can be considered in view of facts by speaking order be issued. On 5.10.2012, the Assam Rifles Authority (Respondent No. 2) have issued necessary order rejecting the application dated 21.7.08 on grounds of intentionally back dated of application dated 21.7.08 for baseless reasons which being arbitrary bias and saturated with malafide intention of the authority. Earlier, the respondent No. 3 had been directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand to decide the representation dated 21.7.2008 at Annexure No. 5 and 6 of the Writ Petition No. 562/2009 (S/S) as per Interim Court Order dated 16.6.2009 and Contempt Petition No. 266/2009 decided on 11.9.2009 issuing show cause to the Respondent No. 2 for non compliance with the Court's order above. Subsequently, the Respondent No. 3 issued order dated 13.11.2009 rejecting both the representations. The Respondent No. 2 is adamant and perverse not to reinstate the petitioner. Hence this Writ Petition is being filed for relief and justice as sought for." 2. Mr. A Barua, the learned counsel appeared for on behalf of the petitioner submits that due to heavy duty and work load the petitioner has fallen ill, as a result, the respondent No. 4 was annoyed and just to harass the petitioner, asked the petitioner to sign one letter when the petitioner was in hospital and the petitioner in good faith signed the same. Consequently, the petitioner came to know that said letter signed by him has been treated as his resignation letter and he was discharged from service on 30.06.08. Consequently, the petitioner came to know that said letter signed by him has been treated as his resignation letter and he was discharged from service on 30.06.08. Being aggrieved by the act of the respondent, the petitioner moved a petition before the Uttarakhand High Court but the same was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction with a direction to dispose of his representation. Thereafter, the petitioner approached Gauhati High Court and the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court vide Judgment & Order dated 7.08.12 passed in WP(C) No. 6891 of 2010 further directed the respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner. Further, in pursuance of the Judgment & Order passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, the Director General of Assam Rifles passed an order dated 05.10.12. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order approached this Court by way of this writ petition to pass necessary direction as this Court deemed fit and proper. 3. On the other hand, Mr. A. Khan, the learned counsel appeared for on behalf of the respondent submitted that, the petitioner voluntarily tendered his resignation on 07.01.08 and the said resignation letter was hand written by the petitioner himself and also submitted another resignation letter in type copy duly signed by him on 14.01.08 which are at Annexures-R-12 and R-13 respectively. 4. The learned counsel also contended that, the petitioner has submitted his representation for withdrawal of his resignation letter aforementioned which was received only on 23.10.09 and the same was disposed of on 30.11.09. The learned counsel further argued that as per Rule-26 sub-section (4) Clause (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 makes it clear that, resignation can be withdrawn by a person within a period of 90 days from the date of discharge. But since in this instant case, the representation/application was made after a lapse of 90 days, hence, the respondent authorities was not in a position to consider his representation, so the petition may be dismissed. 5. On perusal of the Annexures-R-12 & R-13, it clearly shows that the petitioner has submitted his resignation voluntarily on personal family ground and the same were submitted on 7.01.08 and on 14.07.08 respectively. On perusal of the resignation letter advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that there was no ambiguity/contradiction found in the said resignation letter. On perusal of the Annexures-R-12 & R-13, it clearly shows that the petitioner has submitted his resignation voluntarily on personal family ground and the same were submitted on 7.01.08 and on 14.07.08 respectively. On perusal of the resignation letter advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that there was no ambiguity/contradiction found in the said resignation letter. I have also perused the Annexure-R-3, regarding application of the petitioner for reinstatement. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner also could not give any satisfactory reply whether the prayer for reinstatement was filed within a period of 90 days nor could he produce any office copy or postal receipt to show that his representation/application was filed within a period of 90 days. I have perused the Judgment & Order of the Gauhati High Court dated 7.08.12 passed in WP(C) No. 6891 of 2010 and also the impugned order passed by the respondent which is at Annexure-A2. 6. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the respondent, it is clear that the respondent received the representation/application for reinstatement only on 23.10.09. If it is so and if the petitioner has already been discharged from service on 30.06.08, then definitely his representation/application has been made much more after the period as prescribed in Rule-26 sub-section (4) Clause (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 which is reproduced herein below: (iii) that the period of absence from duty between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date which the person is allowed to resume duty as a result of permission to withdraw the resignation is not more than ninety days. 7. After considering the reason given by the respondent in the impugned order as well as the Rule referred to above and other documents placed before me, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 05.10.12. The word Resignation as defined in the Black's Law Dictionary is that, Formal renouncement or relinquishment of an office. Steingruber v. City of San Antonio, Tex.com.App 220 S.W. 77, 78. It must be made with intention of relinquishing the office accompanied by act of relinquishment. Patten v. Miller, 190 Ga. 123, 8 S.E.2d 757, 770; Sadler v. Jester, D.C. Tex., 46 F. Supp. 737, 740. In ecclesiastical law. Steingruber v. City of San Antonio, Tex.com.App 220 S.W. 77, 78. It must be made with intention of relinquishing the office accompanied by act of relinquishment. Patten v. Miller, 190 Ga. 123, 8 S.E.2d 757, 770; Sadler v. Jester, D.C. Tex., 46 F. Supp. 737, 740. In ecclesiastical law. Where a person, vicar, or other beneficed clergyman voluntarily gives up and surrenders his charge and preferment to those from whom he received the same. It is usually done by an instrument attested by a notary, Phillim, Ecc. Law, 517. In Scotch law. The return of a fee into the hands of the superiod Bell. 8. The word Resignation is commonly understood that, "when a person tendered his resignation, he put an end the contract between the employer and employee and after that he has no right to claim any financial benefits for the past services rendered by him." On the other hand, Voluntary Retirement means that, "when a person retires from service due to certain reasons where the bond between the employer and employee does not end and the person is entitled for the post retirement benefits." 9. After considering the pros and cons as well as the position of law and documents placed before me, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 05.10.12, hence, the writ petition is dismissed and the matter stands disposed of. No order as to cost.