ORDER : Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, J. For the reasons mentioned in the application (APPLW 4853/2016) for preponing the date, the same is allowed. The matter is taken up for hearing today itself. 2. The prayer in the present petition is to consider the petitioner as voluntary retired w.e.f. 1st August, 2016 after taking into consideration the expiry of three months from the date of the application dated 16.04.2016 (Annx.5). 3. In response to the application seeking voluntary retirement, the C.M.H.O, Sirohi vide their communication dated 28.04.2016 informed the petitioner that she will be voluntarily retired only after receiving the order/directions for granting the voluntary retirement by the Directorate Jaipur but till date, no communication and order of competent authority i.e. Director, Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan has been communicated to the petitioner and she is still continuing in service. 4. Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension Rules), 1996 reads as under: "50. Retirement on completion of 15 years' qualifying Service: (1) At any time after a Government servant has completed fifteen years qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. (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 refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall automatically become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN'S DECISION Guidelines for acceptance of notice. - A notice of voluntary retirement given after completion of "fifteen years" qualifying service will require acceptance by the appointing authority. Such acceptance may be generally given in all cases except that the Appointing Authority shall withhold permission to retire a Government servant: (i) who is under suspension; (ii) in whose case the disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated for the imposition of a major penalty and the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, is of the view that such disciplinary proceedings might result in imposition of the penalty of removal or dismissal from service; (iii) in whose case prosecution is contemplated or may have been launched in a court of law. In such cases, if it is proposed to accept the notice of voluntary retirement approval of the Government should be obtained. Even where the notice of voluntary retirement given by the Government servant requires acceptance by the appointing authority, the Government servant giving notice may presume acceptance and the retirement shall be effective in terms of the notice unless the competent authority issues an order to the contrary before the expiry of the period of notice. (3) (a) A Government 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 thereof; (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 inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months." 5. It is evident from the above, that at any time after a Government servant has completed fifteen years qualifying service, he can seek voluntary retirement by giving notice of three months and the same shall be accepted except in the eventuality of suspension or disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated. It is not disputed that the petitioner satisfies the condition of the Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 and that neither has she been suspended and nor any disciplinary proceedings were pending or contemplated against her. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State does not dispute that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Kalpana Singh v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4526/2014), decided on 16.12.2014, wherein, this Court decided the issue by holding as under:- "In the present case, the petitioner is entitled to voluntary retirement under Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension Rules), 1996. The said rules are statutory rules. Moreover, the Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 contemplates "a notice to retire" and not "a request seeking permission to retire". The request contemplated in Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 is only in case an employee is seeking waiver of the notice period. The said rules are statutory rules. Moreover, the Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 contemplates "a notice to retire" and not "a request seeking permission to retire". The request contemplated in Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 is only in case an employee is seeking waiver of the notice period. The petitioner who is a Government servant, is governed by the terms and conditions of service framed by the State Government. They leave no scope with the State to withhold the permission except on the three grounds mentioned therein i.e. in case, the petitioner is under suspension; disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated for the imposition of major penalty; or whose prosecution is contemplated or launched in a Court of Law. The Statute must be read in its entirety for the purpose of finding out the intention and object thereof. Yet again in M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs Bombay, JT (2002) 3 SC 551, the Apex Court held as under:- "No words or expressions used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. In matters of interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to other words. No provision in the statute and no word in any section can be construed in isolation. Every provision and every word must be looked at generally and in the context in which it is used. It is said that every statute is an edict of the legislature. The elementary principle of interpreting any word while considering a statute is to gather the means or sententia legis of the legislature. Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the court to take upon itself the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions." 7. Thus, the rule in the present case is absolute except for the three exceptions mentioned above. There was nothing to stop the Government from including the clause "public interest or "any other reason", in case, they had any intention or object behind refusing the voluntary retirement either in the interest of the public or otherwise. Thus, the petitioner was not suffering from any of the disqualification incorporated in the Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 making her ineligible from seeking voluntary retirement. Thus, the petitioner was not suffering from any of the disqualification incorporated in the Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 making her ineligible from seeking voluntary retirement. No such provision or exception in the Rules has been brought to the notice of this Court, which may enable this Court to come to the conclusion that the State could reject the application on any other reasons except as mentioned in the rules. In the absence of any such provision permitting the State to refuse voluntary retirement on the ground of public interest or any other valid reason, the Government is equally bound by the rules and other terms and condition of the service binding the parties." 8. In view of the agreed position, the present writ petition too is allowed. The petitioner shall be deemed to have retired from service with immediate effect.