ORDER : Heard Mr. B.K. Deb Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. ND Chullai, learned Sr. GA assisted by Mr. S Sen Gupta, learned GA appearing for the respondents. 2. The core question calls for decision in the present writ petition is as to whether the question of non-acceptance or acceptance of voluntary retirement of the petitioner after completing the statutory notice of 3 (three) months for voluntary retirement by the authority arises or not? As, this question is to be answered by referring to the FR 57 of the Meghalaya Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, 1984. It would be more profitable to quote FR 57 hereunder:- “CHAPTER IX Compulsory Retirement F.R. 57 (a) – The date of compulsory retirement of a government servant is the date on which he attains the age of 58 years. He may be retained in service after this age with the sanction of the State Government on public grounds which must be recorded in writing, and proposals for the retention of a government servant in service after this age should not be made except in very special circumstances. (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the appropriate authority may if he is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, retire a Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months, in writing or three month’s pay and allowances in lieu of such notice, after he has attained fifty years of age or has completed 25 years of service, whichever is earlier. (c) Any Government servant may by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority retire from service after he has attained the age of fifty years or has completed 25 years of service, whichever is earlier. Administrative Instruction – When a government servant is required to retire, revert or cease to be on leave on attaining specified age, the day on which he attains that age is reckoned as non-working day, and the government servant must retire, revert or cease to be on leave as the case may be with effect from and including that day. This rule applies to all government servants.” 3. The concise fact of the case, sufficient for deciding the above core question, calls for decision in this writ petition is noted. This rule applies to all government servants.” 3. The concise fact of the case, sufficient for deciding the above core question, calls for decision in this writ petition is noted. The petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in the Meghalaya Police in the year 1978 and gradually promoted to the post of Inspector of Police (CID), HQ, Meghalaya. The petitioner, after completing of 35 years of service with the best of his ability and satisfaction of the concerned authority, the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement by giving 3 (three) months notice under FR 57 (c) of the Meghalaya Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, 1984 (for short ‘Meghalaya FR and SR, 1984’). It is categorically pleaded in the present writ petition that under FR 57 (c) of the Meghalaya FR and SR, 1984, the competent authority is under obligation to accept the voluntary retirement after completing 3 (three) months’ notice. The said application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement dated 01.11.2013 (Annexure I to the writ petition) is quoted hereunder:- “To, The Spl. Superintendent of Police, CID, Meghalaya, Shillong. (Through Proper Channel) Sub: Prayer for voluntary retirement from Service. Sir, With utmost respect and sincerer request, I have the honour to state the following. That, I was enlisted in Meghalaya Police in the year 1978 as Constable and had completed 35 years of service. During my service career, I have performed my duty to the best of my ability and satisfaction of my superior. That, my family are settled in Kolkata and at present I am staying alone at Shillong. It may be mentioned that I am not in good health and had been plague with sickness since the past few years. That, I am finding it difficult especially on the financial aspect as I have to look after the expenses both for my family members at Kolkata and also for myself at Shillong paying for house rent and other expenses in both the places. That Sir, it is unfortunately stated that I was indirectly harassed by respected I.G. CID Meghalaya Shri. B.R. Rana IPS for granting my leave as well as quarries of my medical treatment documents as a stepson in view of the above, I am compel to take this step of voluntarily retirement of active service. That Sir, it is unfortunately stated that I was indirectly harassed by respected I.G. CID Meghalaya Shri. B.R. Rana IPS for granting my leave as well as quarries of my medical treatment documents as a stepson in view of the above, I am compel to take this step of voluntarily retirement of active service. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the humble petitioner prays for Voluntary Retirement from active service by giving 3 (three) months notice w.e.f. 01/11/2013 as per F.R./S.R. Further, it is requested that your honour may graciously be pleased to kindly consider my prayer taking into account of the hardship and sickness faced by the undersigned and approved the same on compassionate ground. Dated Shillong The 01/11/2013 Yours faithfully, Sd/ (Shri. Anjan Chakraborty) Inspector of Police, CID (HQ), Meghalaya, Shillong.” 4. As the said application of the petitioner dated 01.11.2013 for voluntary retirement was not fruitful for a considerable period of time, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for a direction to the respondents to accept the said application dated 01.11.2013 for voluntary retirement or for a direction to the respondents for allowing the petitioner to retire from service on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 01.11.2013. 5. The respondents had filed affidavit-in-opposition wherein, it is stated that the petitioner had pending inquiries for three cases and since the cases were long pending even before those were transferred to him, a notice was issued to the petitioner for resuming his duty and also to handover the up-to-date CDs of the said cases vide office letter dated 27.01.2014 and that his voluntary retirement would be processed in due course. It is also stated that under the letter of the Assistant Inspector General of Police (R), Meghalaya, Shillong dated 12.06.2014 with reference to the prayer of the petitioner for voluntary retirement directed the petitioner to submit the original medical certificate and fitness certificate for regularization of the 60 (sixty) days Commuted leave applied by the petitioner under his application dated 30.11.2013 at the earliest so that voluntary retirement procedure can be initiated by PHQ. For easy reference, the said letter dated 12.06.2014 annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents is quoted hereunder:- “GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE MEGHALAYA :::: SHILLONG Letter No.FM/XXIII-44/2012/Misc/68 Dated Shillong, the 12th June, 2014 From: Asst. Inspector General of Police (R), Meghalaya, Shillong. For easy reference, the said letter dated 12.06.2014 annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents is quoted hereunder:- “GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE MEGHALAYA :::: SHILLONG Letter No.FM/XXIII-44/2012/Misc/68 Dated Shillong, the 12th June, 2014 From: Asst. Inspector General of Police (R), Meghalaya, Shillong. To, Shri. Anjan Chakraborty, 370/1, R.N. Guha Road, Meghna Apartment, Kolkata-700074, West Bengal. Sub: Prayer for voluntary Retirement. With reference to the subject cited above, you are hereby directed to furnish the original medical certificate and fitness certificate for regularization of the 60 (sixty) days Commuted leave applied by you dt.30.11.2013 at the earliest so that voluntary retirement procedure can be initiated by PHQ. Yours faithfully, Asst. Inspector General of Police (R), Meghalaya, Shillong. Memo No.FM/XXIII-44/2012/Misc/68 Dated Shillong, the 12th June, 2014 Copy forwarded to:- (1) The Inspector General of Police (CID), Meghalaya, Shillong for information. (2) The Spl. Superintendent of Police (CID), Meghalaya, Shillong for information with reference to No.M/CID/Cell-IV/138Pt/2013/341, dt.16.5.2014. Sd/- Asst. Inspector General of Police (R), Meghalaya, Shillong.” Subsequently, by an order of the Director General of Police, Meghalaya, Shillong dated 11.08.2014, the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect for gross misconduct. 6. From the fact derives from the affidavit-in-opposition, it is clear that long after completing the statutory 3 (three) months’ notice for voluntary retirement under FR 57 (c) of the Meghalaya FR and SR, 1984, the Assistant Inspector General of Police (R) under his letter dated 12.06.2014, directing the petitioner to furnish the original medical certificate and fitness certificate for regularization of the 60 (sixty ) days Commuted leave, so that voluntary retirement procedure can be initiated by PHQ and also the said order dated 11.08.2014 for placing the petitioner under suspension was also passed long after the expiry of the statutory period of 3 (three) months’ notice for voluntary retirement as provided under FR 57 (c) of the Meghalaya FR and SR, 1984. It is fairly settled law that if a statute provides for the approval of the higher authority, the order cannot be given effect to unless it is approved. It would be sufficed to refer to the 2 (two) decisions of the Apex Court i.e. (i) Sant Lal Gupta & Ors v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited & Ors: (2010) 13 SCC 336 and (ii) Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Limited & Ors: (2013) 10 SCC 253 . It would be sufficed to refer to the 2 (two) decisions of the Apex Court i.e. (i) Sant Lal Gupta & Ors v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited & Ors: (2010) 13 SCC 336 and (ii) Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Limited & Ors: (2013) 10 SCC 253 . In para 7 of the SCC in Vijay S. Sathaye’s case (Supra), the Regulations under which the employee can apply for voluntary retirement is quoted and also under that Regulations, the voluntary retirement shall be subject to approval of the competent authority. In that factual matrix, the Apex Court in Sant Lal Gupta & Ors v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited & Ors: (2010) 13 SCC 336 , held that if a statue provides for the approval of the higher authority, the order cannot be given effect to unless it is approved. Paras 7, 8, 9 & 10 of the SCC in Vijay S. Sathaye’s case (Supra) read as follows:- “7. The High Court has examined all the aspects of the matter. Admittedly, the petitioner did not ensure compliance with Regulation 12 (b) of the Service Regulations which required a three months’ notice as a condition for applying for VRS. The stand taken by the petitioner that he had sufficient number of earned leaves in his leave account which could be adjusted in lieu of three month’s notice, had been rightly rejected by the High Court. 8. Regulation 12 reads as under:- “12. An employee shall retire from the service of the Corporation (now Company) on attaining the age of 58 years provided that the competent authority may ask an employee to retire after he attains the age of 55 years, on giving 3 month’s notice, without giving any reason. An employee – (a) on attaining the age of 55 years; or (b) on the completion of 20 years of continuous service, may by giving 3 months’ notice, voluntary retire from service: Provided that the voluntary retirement under clause (b) shall be subject to approval of the competent authority.” 9. It is evident from the above that three months’ notice is mandatory and as the petitioner had not given that notice, his application was liable to be rejected. It is evident from the above that three months’ notice is mandatory and as the petitioner had not given that notice, his application was liable to be rejected. The fact that the respondents had adjusted the earned leave in case of others that cannot be a ground for acceptance of VRS of the petitioner as it is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage a negative equality. More so, the application is subject to approval of the competent authority. 10. Approval means confirming, ratifying, assenting, sanctioning or consenting to some act or thing done by another. The very act of approval means, the act of passing judgment, the use of discretion, and determining as an adjudication therefrom unless limited by the context of the statute. There can be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition that if a statute provides for the approval of the higher authority, the order cannot be given effect to unless it is approved and the same remains inconsequential and unenforceable. (Vide Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited: (2010) 13 SCC 336 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 904 SCC pp.341-42, paras 10-11).” 7. The Gauhati High Court also had considered FR 56 (c) of the Assam FR and SR which is pari materia with FR 57 (c) of the Meghalaya FR and SR, 1984 in Ksihrod Ch. Baruah v. State of Assam & Ors: 1995 (III) GLT 507. It may be pertinent to mention that the Assam FR and SR was adopted by the State of Meghalaya in the year 1972. Later on, the State of Meghalaya framed the “Meghalaya Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, 1984” which is almost similar with the Assam FR & SR. The Gauhati High Court in Ksihrod Ch. Baruah’s case (Supra) held that once the option of voluntary retirement is exercised by the employee under FR 56 (c), the question of not accepting it by the authority does not arise and the employee application for voluntary retirement shall be deemed to have been effective after completing the statutory notice of 3 (three) months. The relevant portions of paras 3, 4 & 5 of the GLT in Ksihrod Ch. Baruah’s case (Supra) read as follows:- “3. The relevant portions of paras 3, 4 & 5 of the GLT in Ksihrod Ch. Baruah’s case (Supra) read as follows:- “3. The petitioner wanted to go on voluntary retirement vide Annexure V to the writ application with effect from 2.2.86 after completion of service of 23 years 6 months. The Rule of Voluntary Retirement is that any person can go on voluntary retirement after completion of service of 20 years or on attaining the age of 50 years whichever is earlier. The petitioner in this case fulfils both the conditions. On 27.3.86 the petitioner wrote to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Health & FW Deptt. as follows: “Under Rule FR 56 (c), I beg to apply for voluntary retirement with effect from 3.2.86 and the Govt. may release me from that date. Further to my letter dated 6.2.86 the Govt. may provisionally release me by adjusting my outstanding house building advance of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only plus interest thereon against gratuity amounting to Rs.25,000/- or so. The GPT A/C No. PH (A) 1437 standing in my name also may please be settled by Accountant General with an instruction to withdrawn the amount finally.” 4. The authority wants to stop this offer of voluntary retirement on the ground that is to be accepted by the competent authority. The law on this point has been settled by a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1978 SC 17 (Dinesh Chandra Sangma –vs- State of Assam and Ors) wherein paragraph 13 it has been stated as follows: “F.R. 56 is one of the statutory rules which binds the Government as well as the Government servant. The condition of service which is envisaged in R. 56 (c) giving an option in absolute terms to a Government servant to voluntarily retire with three months previous notice, after he reaches 50 years of age or has completed 25 years of service, cannot therefore be equated with a contract of employment as envisaged in Expl. 2 to R.119.” 5. So, once this option is exercised by the employee, the question of not accepting it by the authority does not arise. 2 to R.119.” 5. So, once this option is exercised by the employee, the question of not accepting it by the authority does not arise. In that view of the matter, the petitioner’s voluntary retirement shall be deemed to have been effective from 3.5.86 and the petitioner shall be entitled to all the pensionary benefit as available to him from that date and Annexure-VII, dated 26.4.93 shall not be a bar for giving pensionary benefit in accordance with the rules as the petitioner shall be deemed to go on voluntary retirement from that date.” 8. In the case of voluntary retirement of the Central Govt. employee under FR 56 (k) (1) of the FR and SR of the Central Govt. employee, it is open to the appropriate authority to withhold permission to a Govt. servant under suspension who seeks to retire under that clause. For easy reference, FR 56 (k) (1) of the FR and SR of the Central Govt. employee is quoted hereunder:- “56 (k) (1) Any Government servant may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority, retire from service after he has attained the age of fifty years, if he is in Group ‘A’ or Group ‘B’ service or post, (and had entered Government service before attaining the age of thirty-five years), and in all other cases after he has attained the age of fifty-five years: Provide that – (a) Not printed (Since Clause (e) has been Deleted) (b) nothing in the clause shall also apply to a Government servant including scientist or technical expert who (i) is on assigning under the Indian Technical and Economic Co-operation (ITEC) Programme of the Ministry of External Affairs and other aid Programmes, (ii) is posted abroad in a foreign-based office of a Ministry/Department and (iii) goes on a specific contract assignment to a foreign Government unless, after having been transferred to India, he has resumed the charge of the post in India and served for a period of not less than one year; and (c) it shall be open to the Appropriate Authority to withhold permission to a Government servant under suspension who seeks to retire under this clause.” The power of the appropriate authority under proviso (c) to FR 56 (k) (1) of the FR and SR of the Central Govt. employee not to accept the voluntary retirement is not available in the FR 57 (c) of the Meghalaya FR and SR, 1984. 9. After given anxious consideration of FR 57 (c) of the Meghalaya FR and SR, 1984, it is clear that the Meghalaya FR and SR, 1984 does not contemplate the power of non-acceptance of the application/notice or voluntary retirement after completing the statutory period of 3 (three) months’ notice by the appropriate authority. Accordingly, the petitioner’s notice for voluntary retirement or application dated 01.11.2013 shall deem to be accepted soon after completion of the statutory period of 3 (three) months. Had the petitioner been retired from service on voluntary retirement after completing the statutory notice of 3 (three) months as contemplated by FR 57 (c) of the Meghalaya FR and SR, 1984, the petitioner would not have been put under suspension by the said order of the Director General of Police, Meghalaya dated 11.08.2014. Therefore, the said order of the Director General of Police, Meghalaya dated 11.08.2014 for placing the petitioner under suspension is illegal. Thus, the impugned suspension order dated 11.08.2014 is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to accept the application or notice of the petitioner dated 01.11.2013 for voluntary retirement after completing the statutory period of 3 (three) months in compliance with FR 57 (c) of the Meghalaya FR and SR, 1984 and necessary order should be issued within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. 10. In the result, writ petition is allowed.