JUDGMENT : GOVIND MATHUR, J. Having considered all facts of the case we are inclined to condone delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Heard learned counsel on merits. 3. In brief, facts of the case are that the respondent entered in the service of respondents being appointed as Junior Specialist (Surgery) under an order dated 10.5.2006. An application was submitted by him on 11.10.2011 to have retirement from service voluntarily w.e.f. 15.1.2012. The request for voluntary retirement was denied by the employer under an order dated 30.12.2011 as the respondent was facing disciplinary action. Another application was submitted by the respondent-petitioner on 12.1.2012, contents of that reads as follows:— ^^la'kksf/kr&izfr lsok es] 1- Jheku izeq[k 'kklu lfpo egksn;] fpfdRlk ,ao LokLF; foHkkx] t;iqjA 2- Jheku funs'kd tu LokLF; foHkkx egksn;] t;iqjA 3- Jheku eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh egksn;] jk;iqj] HkhyokM+kA 4- Jheku ofj"B fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh egksn;] jk;iqj] HkhyokM+kA fo"k; % & fnukad 15-03-2012 ls jkT; lsok ls R;kxi= nsus ckcr~A mijksDr fo"k; esa fuosnu gS fd eS MkW pUnzizdk'k tSu] d-fo- ¼'kY;½] lk-Lok- dsUnz jk;iqj] HkhyokM+k] us LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fŸk gsrq viuk izkFkZuk i= fnukad 11-10-2011 dks Jheku 'kklu mi lfpo] fpfdRlk ,oa LOkkLFk; lsok,] ¼xzqi&2½ jktLFkku ljdkj] t;iqj dks izsf"kr fd;k ftlesa esjs }kjk ikfjokfjd ,oa 'kkjhfjd dkj.kkos'k fnuakd 15-1-2012 ls LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fŸk pkgh xbZ FkhA mDr izkFkZuk i= ds tokc esa Jheku vfrfjDRk funs'kd jktif=r fpfdRlk ,ao LokLF; lsok,] jktLFkku t;iqj us vius i= Øekad bZ26@doh@lh 256@2011@1466 fnukad 30-12-2011 ls] ;g fy[kdj euk dj fn;k dh esjs fo:) nsox<+] jktleUn dk ,d izdj.k fopkj/khu gSA mDRk izdj.k ds laEc/ka esa KkrO; gks fd eS viuk Li"Vhdj.k fnukad 28-09-2010 dks Jheku dh lsok esa izsf"kr dj pqdk gwWA fQj Hkh esjs fo:) dk;Zokgh izLrkfor crkrs gq, esjh LosfPNd lsok fuo`fŸk Lohd`r ugha dh xbZ gSA pqafd funs'kky; Lrj dh f'kfFkyrk ds dkj.k esjh LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fŸk ugha gqbZ gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa eS fnaukd 15-3-2012 ls jkT; lsok esa R;kx izLrqr dj jgk gwWA d`I;k esjk R;kx&i= Lohdkj djsA fnukad % 12-01-2012 ,LkMh@& MkW- pUnzizdk'k tSu d-fo-¼'kY;½ lk-Lok-dsUnz] jk;iqj] HkhyokMk^^ 4. On being failed to get any response from the employer with regard to application dated 12.1.2012, the respondent preferred a petition for writ before this Court by representing the letter dated 12.1.2012 as an application seeking voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 15.3.2012. The learned Single Bench by treating the same as an application to have voluntary retirement accepted the writ petition and ordered the respondent to treat the petitioner retired voluntarily from service w.e.f. 15.3.2012. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is before us. 5. It is stated by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that by no stretch of imagination the communication Annex. 4 dated 12.1.2012 could have been treated as an application seeking voluntary retirement. It is asserted that from reading of contents of the application, it is apparent that the respondent was knowing well the difference between voluntary retirement and resignation. The respondent himself in the letter dated 12.2.2012 mentioned that he is tendering resignation from service w.e.f. 15.3.2012 being failed to have voluntary retirement. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-petitioner states that under the letter dated 12.1.2012 the appellant was intending to have voluntary retirement in view of the fact that earlier too he submitted an application for the same purpose. 7. We have looked into the record, specially, the document Annex. 4 dated 12.1.2012, an application that is treated by the learned Single Bench as an application seeking voluntary retirement. In the application aforesaid after referring the details pertaining to the voluntary retirement submitted earlier and rejection of that the respondent-petitioner stated that “because of the inaction at directorate level, I have not been voluntarily retired, therefore, I am submitting resignation from government service from 15.3.2012. Please accept my resignation” (translated from vernacular). The contents noticed above clearly indicate that the respondent-petitioner was aware of the difference between voluntary retirement and resignation from service. His intention was only to tender resignation being failed to have voluntary retirement. The application dated 12.1.2012, as such, by no stretch of imagination could have been treated as an application seeking voluntary retirement from service. The application is nothing but a desire to resign from service w.e.f. 15.3.2012. 8. His intention was only to tender resignation being failed to have voluntary retirement. The application dated 12.1.2012, as such, by no stretch of imagination could have been treated as an application seeking voluntary retirement from service. The application is nothing but a desire to resign from service w.e.f. 15.3.2012. 8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Bench erred while treating the application dated 12.1.2012 as an application seeking voluntary retirement and, therefore, wrongly accepted the petition for writ with a direction to treat the respondent-petitioner voluntarily retired from 15.3.2012 with entitlement to have retiral benefits. 9. Accordingly, this appeal deserves acceptance, hence is allowed. The order passed by learned Single Bench dated 27.8.2015 in writ petition bearing No. 6679/2015 is set aside. The S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6679/2015 is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal accepted.