JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral) - Judgment dated 27.7.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No. 2817 of 2008 is under challenge in this Appeal. The writ Petition (initially OA No. 2306 of 1995 filed in the H.P. Administrative Tribunal) was filed by the respondent herein after he was allowed to retire voluntarily from service with the following prayers:- (a) Quash the inquiry report dated 7.12.1993 and the order dated 18.4.1991 (Annexures A-3 and A4). (b) Expunge the adverse remarks in the ACRs for the period 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1990. (c) Quash the decision of Sub-Committee of the Board of Directors held on 6.5.1995 (Annexure A9) rejecting the representation and Appeals of the applicant. (d) Quash the order dated 6.8.1991 (Annexure A17). (e) Quash the order dated 25.4.1990 (Annexure A23). (f) Quash the decision of the Board of Directors dated 10.5.1990 (Annexure A24) (g) Direct the respondents to fix the pay of the applicant at Rs. 1040/- w.e.f. 25/28.11.1991 on his promotion as Branch Manager in the scale of Rs. 850-1700, after giving him benefit of FR 22C and consequently fix his pay in the revised scale w.e.f. 1.6.1982. (h) Direct the respondents to pay to the applicant the conveyance allowance @ Rs. 75/- per month w.e.f. 14-7-81/28-11-1981 till the date of his retirement. (i) Direct the respondents to pay all consequential benefits, monetary and otherwise to the applicant along with interest @ 18% per annum. (j) Direct the respondents to grant proficiency step-up to the applicant w.e.f. 1.6.1990. (k) Direct the respondents to re-fix the retiral benefits of the applicant in pursuance to the orders of this Hon''ble Tribunal. 2. Learned Single Judge, on having taken into consideration the pleadings of parties and hearing learned counsel on both sides, has allowed the writ Petition and directed the appellant i.e. respondent Corporation to grant the Petitioner benefit under FR 22 (c) w.e.f. 28.11.1981 and also the proficiency step up w.e.f. 1.6.1990 within four weeks. 3. The respondent Corporation, being aggrieved by such directions, has preferred the present Appeal on the grounds inter alia that on acceptance of the request for voluntary retirement from service made by the respondent/writ Petitioner and settlement of retiral benefits vide order, Annexure A-2 to the present Appeal, no claim qua past service benefits of the writ Petitioner could have been entertained nor any relief granted to him. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Atul Jhingan, learned counsel representing the appellant Corportion, has vehemently argued that the offer to retire from service voluntarily and acceptance of such offer by the employer ultimately culminated into a concluded contract and now the Petitioner cannot turn around and claim the past service benefits on the ground that the same were withheld wrongly and in an unlawful manner. Mr. Sameer Thakur, learned Advocate, however, submits that irrespective of the writ Petitioner has sought voluntary retirement, he is competent to claim the past service benefits, which according to him were illegally withheld. 5. The Apex Court in ITI Limited vs. ITI Ex/VR Employees/Officers Welfare Association and others, (2010) 12 SCC 347 by placing reliance on judgment again that of the Apex Court in HeC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., (2006) 3 SCC 708 has held that an offer for voluntary retirement, in terms of a scheme, when accepted, leads to a concluded contract between the employer and employee. Also that consequent upon an offer made by the employee and the same is accepted by the employer, gives rise to a contract. It is further held in the same judgment that if an employee has got the benefits under voluntary retirement scheme whether right or wrong, the matter cannot be re-opened and an employee cannot claim any higher amount on account of subsequent revision in the wages retrospectively. If applying the ratio of the judgments cited supra, in the given facts and circumstances of this case, the same is on better footing as the Petitioner availed certain benefits which were withheld on account of departmental action taken against the Petitioner and by way of penalty imposed well before having sought voluntary retirement from service. Therefore, the Petitioner who had sought voluntary retirement seeking benefits under notified voluntary retirement scheme cannot turn around and persue his other grievances with regard to the period he was in service. As has been held by the Apex Court in judgments cited supra, the pre-condition of applying for voluntary retirement and acceptance thereof by the respondent department, the Petitioner cannot persue any grievance with regard to service benefits for service already rendered by him. To make the offer to seek voluntary retirement was conditional. As has been held by the Apex Court in judgments cited supra, the pre-condition of applying for voluntary retirement and acceptance thereof by the respondent department, the Petitioner cannot persue any grievance with regard to service benefits for service already rendered by him. To make the offer to seek voluntary retirement was conditional. The application he made to this effect forms the part of record of this Appeal which is Annexure A-1 to the application, CMP No. 8699 of 2016. The employer i.e. appellant/respondent however has conveyed its acceptance in the manner as detailed in Annexure A-2 and the due and admissible benefits have also been indicated in this document. The Petitioner after having accepted the same has filed writ Petition with the grievances as discussed hereinabove, which is not permissible. We, therefore, are not in agreement with the findings recorded by learned Single Judge. The impugned judgment as such is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the writ Petition is dismissed. The Appeal is allowed and stands accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application shall also stand disposed of.