Ajit Singh; CJ.:-- 1. Mr. D Das, learner senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S Borthakur, Ms. P Baruah and Mr. R Sensua, learned counsel for the appellant. Ms. U Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Transport Corporation for Respondents. 2. Heard on admission. 3. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 29.9.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has disposed of appellant’s WP(C) No. 3266/2016. 4. The appellant was an employee of the Assam State Transport Corporation (in short “Corporation”). On 25.2.2015, he applied for voluntary retirement with effect from 1.3.2016. The Managing Director of the Corporation vide order dated 26.2.2016 accepted the appellant’s prayer for voluntary retirement. Thereafter, the appellant contested the Assam Legislative Assembly Election held in 2016 as an Independent candidate. And after having lost the election, he made a representation dated 21.5.2016 for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement on the ground that the Corporation did not pay him his dues. Since the Corporation did not pass any favourable order on this representation of the appellant, he filed WP(C) No. 3266/2016. 5. The learned Single Judge, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Sambhu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India Limited, (2000) 5 SCC 621 , by the impugned order, declined to grant relief of his reinstatement. In Sambhu Murari Sinha (supra), the Supreme Court has held that an employee can withdraw his application for voluntary retirement even after it is accepted, but only before the effective date of retirement. 6. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the effective date of appellant’s voluntary retirement was 1.3.2016. Meaning thereby, the relationship of master and servant between the appellant and Corporation, came to an end with effect from that date. Thereafter, the appellant unsuccessfully contested the election of Assam Legislative Assembly. Had the appellant not retired voluntarily, he could not have fulfilled his dream of contesting the election. The appellant apparently gambled with his career. Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge has already directed the Corporation to pay all retirement dues, which the appellant is entitled for, within two months. 7. This being the situation, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.