Order Anjana Mishra, J. The present writ application, filed by the Union of India, through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, District- Vaishali (Bihar), seeks a writ, in the nature of certiorari, to annul and quash the order, dated 15.02.2012, passed, in Original Application No.769 of 2010, by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for the sake of brevity “the learned Tribunal”), whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal has disposed of the Original Application, with direction to the respondents (writ petitioners herein) to regularize the entire period of absence of the original applicant from 28.12.2005 to 15.2.2010 treating him, for all purposes, as on duty. The learned Tribunal has further directed and made it clear that salary shall be payable only from the date one year prior to the date of making of the first representation, i.e., 28.10.2009, on which date it is stated that the original applicant made an application for resumption of duty. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the original applicant, as stated before the learned Tribunal, may be set out thus:- (i) The original applicant was initially appointed, on 26.06.1982, as Safaiwala, in Class-IV Post, under the Health Inspector, Kiul. He continued to work at various places and, on 18.05.1988, he came to be transferred and posted, on deputation, under the Chief Project Manager, Electrification, Danapur. On 15.05.2001, the original applicant, who is the sole respondent herein, was repatriated to the parent organization, i.e., Danapur Division. Following his repatriation the original applicant filed, on 28.12.2005, an application for voluntary retirement and continued to be on leave on the ground of his ill health. (ii) The authorities, according to the case of the original applicant, were bound to either accept or reject, before expiry of 90 days, original applicants request for voluntary retirement, which is the period prescribed under the relevant Retirement Rules for acceptance/rejection of an applicants request for voluntary retirement, failing which the request for the voluntary retirement shall be treated to have been accepted. (iii) As the respondents had neither accepted nor rejected the original applicants prayer for voluntary retirement, the original applicant appeared before the competent authority, namely, the Chief Health Inspector, Danapur, and, vide his application, dated 28.10.2009, made request for withdrawal of his earlier application for voluntary retirement as well as permission to resume duty (Annexure-3 herein), the original applicant, then, filed an original application in the learned Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, which gave rise to Original Application No.1589 of 2009. This application was subsequently withdrawn. 3. On 28.10.2009, the original applicant filed an application for resumption of duty, because he came to know that his application, for voluntary retirement, had been rejected on the ground that he had not fulfilled requisite criteria for being allowed the benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme. 4. Thereafter, the original applicant filed an application in the learned Tribunal, which gave rise to O.A. No. 769 of 2010, wherein he sought for, inter alia, direction to be issued to the respondents, to regularize the intervening period from 28.12.2005 to 15.02.2010, as on duty for all purposes and to pay him salary for the said intervening period with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and interest thereon. 5. It was submitted, on behalf of the appellants herein, who were respondents before the learned Tribunal, that the original applicant had filed application for payment of his post- retiral dues pending for long, but in view of rejection of his request for voluntary retirement, he was advised by letter, dated 09.02.2010, to report, immediately, for further action, to put him back on duty. The said letter, dated 09.02.2010, is a communication to the Chief Medical Superintendent, East Central Railway, Danapur, addressed to the Divisional Railway Manager, Danapur, whereby it had been decided that the applicant be advised to report for further action with regard to putting him back on duty. It was further submitted that the applicants representations, for payment of retiral dues made on 22.5.2008 followed by his representations of resumption of duty made on 28.10.2009, were accepted by the authorities concerned on 09.02.2010 and the applicant was allowed to resume his duty w.e.f. 16.02.2010. It was further submitted that the applicants representations, for payment of retiral dues made on 22.5.2008 followed by his representations of resumption of duty made on 28.10.2009, were accepted by the authorities concerned on 09.02.2010 and the applicant was allowed to resume his duty w.e.f. 16.02.2010. Since the intervening period between the submission of representation for voluntary retirement, made on 28.12.2005, till his resumption of duty on 16.02.2010, had not been regularized, it was prayed, in the Original Application No.1589 of 2009, that the same be accorded to applicant with all consequential benefits. 6. The respondents to the said O.A. contested the claim of the original applicant by way of written statement stating, inter alia, that the original applicant had been absent from duty since 28.12.2005 during which period he had tendered his application for his voluntary retirement and, on examination of the same, it was found that he did not have the requisite qualifying service for acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement and, hence, the request for voluntary retirement was rejected and in view of the fact that the original applicant had rejoined duty on 16.2.2010, the period from 28.12.2005 to 15.2.2010 could not be treated as on duty and, accordingly, the claim of the applicant for payment of salary for the period aforementioned, during which he had not worked, is inadmissible. The further contention of the respondents, in the O.A., was that the payment of salary for the period concerned was not possible as per relevant rules on the ground that the applicant was not on sanctioned leave; rather, he was unauthorized absent. 7. In the rejoinder to the written statement, filed by the applicant, it was contended that he was appointed in the year 1977 and had completed more than 22 years of service from the date of his confirmation, i.e. 1.6.1982, and, hence, the reason for not accepting his request for voluntary retirement, shown in the letter, dated 9.2.2010, was wholly misconceived and baseless. It was also submitted that once the applicant had submitted his application for voluntary retirement on 28.12.2005, the same should have been either rejected before expiry of the period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the application and if not rejected, then, the same should be deemed to have been accepted under the Rules; but the fact remains that no order was issued by the respondents within 90 days as per the relevant rules even though the applicant had made various requests for payment and settlement of his dues since 2008. Lastly, in the year 2009, the respondents verbally informed the applicant that his request for voluntary retirement had been rejected and he was, therefore, directed, vide order, dated 09.02.2010, to resume duty. The applicant further contended that since he was kept out of work on account of administrative lapses by his controlling authorities, the principle of “no work, no pay” was not applicable to his case and he was, therefore, entitled to payment of salary for the period from 28.12.2005 to 15.02.2010. Further-more, till that date, the respondents had not issued any charge sheet for alleged unauthorized absence for the said period. 8. The learned Tribunal, upon considering the respective cases of the applicant and of the respondents, has held that the order of rejection of the application, made on 28.12.2005, seeking voluntary retirement, was not justified and since applicants final prayer, dated 28.10.2009, for resumption of duty was accepted only on 09.02.2010 and since the applicant was kept out of work by the respondents, the said period of the appellants absence could not have been treated as unauthorised so as to justify denial of regularisation of the said period and payment of salary thereof. Consequently, the learned Tribunal directed the respondents, in the O.A., to regularise the entire period between 28.12.2005 and 15.02.2010, as on duty, for all purposes and directed for payment of salary only for one year prior to the date of making first representation for resumption of duty. 9. Consequently, the learned Tribunal directed the respondents, in the O.A., to regularise the entire period between 28.12.2005 and 15.02.2010, as on duty, for all purposes and directed for payment of salary only for one year prior to the date of making first representation for resumption of duty. 9. The present writ application seeks to challenge the said order of the learned Tribunal on two grounds, namely, (i) That the applicant did not render 20 years of minimum qualifying service, which is the requisite criterian for acceptance of voluntary retirement; (ii) The applicant was unauthorized absent from duty for three years eleven months and ten days and, therefore, the appellants request for pension was rejected. 10. It is submitted, on behalf of the writ petitioners, that the application for voluntary retirement, filed by the applicant, could not be considered as per the Railway Rules inasmuch as out of total period of 23 years 9 months and 16 days of rendered service, the applicant had been unauthorized absent for a period of three years eleven months and ten days. The applicant had submitted his application for Voluntary retirement on 28.12.2005 and had continued to be absent, thereafter, in unauthorized manner and he had not discharged duty for three months after the date of application for voluntary retirement till the acceptance/rejection of his application for voluntary retirement. It is also submitted by the writ petitioners that the applicants case, for voluntary retirement, was rejected on 17.3.2009 and the same was sought to be communicated to him through the Chief Health Inspector, East Central Railway, Danapur, but could not be done as the original applicant unauthorized remained absent. It was only thereafter that the original applicant (sole respondent herein) appeared before the competent authority with an application for withdrawal of earlier application seeking voluntary retirement with a prayer to allow him to resume duty, which was duly accepted vide Annexure 3. 11. We have heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Ravi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. M.P. Dixit, learned Counsel for the sole respondent. 12. The rival contentions, advanced on behalf of the parties, give rise to the question as to whether the applicants case could have been rejected under the Extent Railway Rules, which provide for voluntary retirement. 11. We have heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Ravi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. M.P. Dixit, learned Counsel for the sole respondent. 12. The rival contentions, advanced on behalf of the parties, give rise to the question as to whether the applicants case could have been rejected under the Extent Railway Rules, which provide for voluntary retirement. In this context, it would be appropriate for us to refer to Rule 67 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which deals with the Voluntary Retirement Scheme on completion of 20 years of qualifying service. Rule 67 reads: “67. Retirement on completion of 20 years qualifying service:- (1) At any time after a railway servant has completed twenty years qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months? notice in writing to the appointing authority retire from service: Provided that this sub- rule shall not apply to a railway servant including Scientists or technical expert who is – (i) on assignment under the Indian Technical and economic Cooperation (ITEC) Programme of the Ministry of External Affairs and other aid programmes; (ii) posted in abroad in foreign based offices of the Ministries or Departments; (iii) on a specific contract assignment to a foreign Government unless, after having been transferred to India, he has resumed the charge of a post in India and served for a period of not less than one hear. (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority: Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuses to grant the permission for retirement before the expire of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority: Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuses to grant the permission for retirement before the expire of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. (3) (a) A railway servant referred to in sub-rule (1) may, make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons therefore; (b) On receipt of a request under clause (a), the appointing authority subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), may consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative in convenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the railway servant shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the period of notice of three months. (4) A railway servant, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority: Provided that the request for withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement. (5) The Pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity of the railway servant retiring under this rule shall be based on the emoluments as defined under rules 49 and 50 and the increase not exceeding five years in his qualifying service shall not entitle him to any national fixation of pay for purposes of calculating pension and gratuity. (6) This rule shall not apply to a railway servant who retires from railway service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement. Explanation- For the purpose of this rule, “appointing authority” means the authority which is competent to make appointments to the service or post from which the railway servant seeks voluntary retirement.” 13. Explanation- For the purpose of this rule, “appointing authority” means the authority which is competent to make appointments to the service or post from which the railway servant seeks voluntary retirement.” 13. A perusal of Rule 67 reveals that the period of 20 years of qualifying service had clearly been met by the applicant as, in any view of the matter, the applicant had completed 23 years of service and, therefore, the act of the writ petitioners in rejecting the applicants claim for the voluntary retirement has no basis. We have also noticed that the writ petitioners had kept the application for voluntary retirement, filed by the applicant, pending from the year 2005 to the year 2009 and it is only on 17.3.2009 that the applicants case was rejected for no specified reasons. It is also notable to mention that the writ petitioners did not communicate their decision to the applicant regarding rejection of his representation for voluntary retirement and no plausible explanation has been offered by the writ petitioners to indicate why the said application was kept pending for almost four years after submission of the same in the year 2005. Such a delay by the writ petitioners cannot be allowed to be perpetuated as it would amount to negating the right of the original applicant. Their attitude of putting the blame squarely on the shoulder of the applicant by alleging that the applicant had been on unauthorized leave cannot, but be regarded as an inexcusable justification for their own lapses. 14. In the above context, reference can be made to the case of Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Produce Marketing and processing Corporation Ltd. Vs. Suman Behari Sharma, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 584 , wherein the Supreme Court, at paragraph 8, has held as follow: “8…….We cannot agree with the interpretation canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent. The bye-law has to be read as a whole. Para (2) thereof confers a right on the employee to request for voluntary retirement on completion of 25 years service or on attaining the age of 50 years, but his desire would materialise only if he is permitted to retire and not otherwise. Ordinarily, in a matter like this an employee who has put in less number of years of service would not be on a better footing than the employee who has put in longer service. Ordinarily, in a matter like this an employee who has put in less number of years of service would not be on a better footing than the employee who has put in longer service. It could not have been the intention of the rule-making authority while framing para 5 of the bye-law to confer on such an employee a better and a larger right to retire after giving three months notice in writing. The words “seek retirement” in para 5 indicate that the right which is conferred by it is not the right to retire but a right to ask for retirement. The word “seek” implies a request by the employee and corresponding acceptance or permission by HPMC. Therefore, there cannot be automatic retirement or snapping of service relationship on expiry of three months period.” 15. In the instant case, we have already observed that the application for voluntary retirement had been kept pending for four years to the disadvantage of the sole respondent herein and, therefore, the said period of absence cannot be fairly treated as unauthorised absence since respondent herein had, admittedly, applied for voluntary retirement on the ground of ill-health. 16. Moreover, in view of the order of rejection, the petitioner was directed to resume duty, which he has done, soon thereafter, with effect from 16.2.2010. 17. The learned Tribunal has also considered the plea raised by the writ petitioners before it that salary cannot be paid to the applicant on the principle of “no work, no pay”. 18. In the present case, this Court, upon perusing the documents of the writ petitioners, especially, Annexures 2 and 3, has come to a finding that the unusual delay, on behalf of the writ petitioners, in dealing with, and deciding the claim of, the sole respondent herein for grant of the benefit of voluntary retirement remains unexplained and the applicant-respondent cannot be punished for the lapses on the part of the writ petitioners. Consequently, the principle of “no work, no pay” would not apply as the respondent herein was kept in the dark regarding fate of his application seeking voluntary retirement and it was only after the respondent herein had started agitating for grant of settlement of his dues that the writ petitioners, who were sleeping so far, suddenly, woke up, rejected the applicants request for voluntary retirement and directed him to rejoin his duties. 19. 19. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we are clearly of the view that the decision of learned Tribunal directing regularization of the original applicants service for the entire period of absence from 28.12.2005 to 15.2.2010 and payment of salary only from the date of one year prior to the date of making first representation for resumption on duty is wholly justified. This Court has also found that the applicant had already completed altogether 28 years of service and as much as 23 years of service from the date of his confirmation and, thus, there was no impediment, in the light of Rule 67 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993, in accepting applicants prayer for voluntary retirement, which was kept hanging for nearly four years and, in the circumstances indicated hereinbefore, the applicant cannot be punished for the lapse on the part of the writ petitioners. 20. In the result, this writ application fails and the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, passed in O.A. No.769 of 2010, is hereby maintained. 21. The writ petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. I. A. Ansari, J. : I agree.