JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. Petitioner has filed present writ petition claiming benefits of her late husband who was appointed on the post of Conductor on 15/03/1979 at Alwar Depot. 2. It is submitted that during the course of service, the husband of the petitioner had moved an application for seeking voluntary retirement from service on 28/07/2005 on account of health reasons. The application was, however, not considered and no order was passed on the Voluntary Retirement Application. The petitioner's husband under depression and mental disturbances submitted another application on 03/05/2006 for resignation pointing out his health condition was getting deteriorated. On the basis of the resignation application, his resignation was accepted by the authorities on 31/05/2006 and he was relieved of his duties. 3. It is submitted by the petitioner that her husband immediately submitted an application pointing out that he had wrongfully mentioned ‘resignation’ and actually he wanted retirement in view of his earlier application which he had already moved for Voluntary Retirement. The application was also addressed mentioning that no decision had been taken on his previous application dated 28/07/2005 and he should be treated to have voluntarily retired and he further prayed that his retiral benefits be released. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's husband was wrongfully relieved from service treating him as resigned from service, whereas once he had moved application for voluntary retirement and the same was not decided, the he would be treated to have retired automatically in terms of the Clause 18-D(2) of the RSRTC Standing Orders. 5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the subsequent application, therefore, would not make any difference. He also relies on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sheel Kumar Jain v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : 2012 (1) SLR 305 wherein in similar matter, the Supreme Court has held that if the employee had completed more than the requisite qualifying service, for the purpose of pension, the application for resignation would be treated as voluntary retirement application and had directed as under:— “13. Ltd. : 2012 (1) SLR 305 wherein in similar matter, the Supreme Court has held that if the employee had completed more than the requisite qualifying service, for the purpose of pension, the application for resignation would be treated as voluntary retirement application and had directed as under:— “13. The aforesaid authorities would show that the Court will have to construe the statutory provisions in each case to find out whether the termination of service of an employee was a termination by way of resignation or a termination by way of voluntary retirement and while construing the statutory provisions, the Court will have to keep in mind the purposes of the statutory provisions. The general purpose of the Pension Scheme, 1995, read as a whole, is to grant pensionary benefits to employees, who had rendered service in the Insurance Companies and had retired after putting in the qualifying service in the Insurance Companies. Clauses 22 and 30 of the Pension Scheme, 1995 cannot be so construed as to deprive of an employee of an Insurance Company, such as the appellant, who had put in the qualifying service for pension and who had voluntarily given up his service after serving 90 days notice in accordance with sub-clause (1) of Clause 5 of the Scheme, 1976 and after his notice was accepted by the appointing authority. 14. In the result, we set aside the orders of the Division Bench of the High Court in the Writ Appeal as well as the learned Single Judge and allow this appeal as well as the Writ Petition filed by the appellant and direct the respondents to consider the claim of the appellant for pension in accordance with the Pension Scheme, 1995 and intimate the decision to the appellant within three months from today. There shall be no order as to costs.” 6. The right of exiting from employment has to be treated as a right available for each employee. A forceful work undertaken by any employer would be akin to slavery. However, with a caveat that salary will also be paid during the said period. There shall be no order as to costs.” 6. The right of exiting from employment has to be treated as a right available for each employee. A forceful work undertaken by any employer would be akin to slavery. However, with a caveat that salary will also be paid during the said period. A bond may be undertaken from an individual for working for a particular period but if an individual has put in service with the State or its Authorities the minimum service required, before he can seek retirement, the State and its authorities cannot force such an individual to work after the said qualified period is over. 7. In cases where an applicant moves an application on account of health problems or other genuine grounds, it can be observed safely that the action on the part of the Sate enforcing such an employee to work would be an act of oppression and exploitation. No rule can be construed for such purposes and such action would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. 8. Having said so, this Court finds that in the present case, the petitioner has moved application pointing out that he was not keeping well and was having difficulty of eye-sight also. The voluntary retirement application was not decided within the period as prescribed and in view of Clause 19-D(2), the applicant would be entitled to be deemed to have retired. 9. However, as there was no relieving order passed, the applicant moved another application wherein he termed his retirement as resignation and taking the same, the employer has allowed the resignation and relieved him. In the circumstances, as noted above, the ‘resignation’ shall be construed as a case of seeking voluntary retirement as has been mentioned by him subsequently also and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court (Supra) 10. Therefore, it is now directed that the petitioner's husband would be treated to have retired from the date has been relieved and he would also be entitled to retiral benefits as per the period of service rendered by him. The benefits, which the respondents have already released in favour of the petitioner, shall be accordingly adjusted. The compliance of this order be made by the respondents within a period of three months of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. The benefits, which the respondents have already released in favour of the petitioner, shall be accordingly adjusted. The compliance of this order be made by the respondents within a period of three months of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. The writ petition stands allowed in terms of the directions as indicated above.