JUDGMENT : Petitioner who was working as Office Attender in the KSEB submitted Ext.P1 application for voluntary retirement on 06.02.1995. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: "(i) Call for the records leading to this case and issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibits P8, P11, P14, P17 and P24. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to sanction voluntary retirement to the petitioner with effect from 2.4.1995 and disburse all consequential retirement benefits including provident fund and all other pensionary benefits to the petitioner with interest immediately." 2. The petitioner submits that he did not receive any communication on his application for voluntary retirement. The respondents thereafter initiated disciplinary action against him, issuing Ext.P8 memo of charges dated 05.04.2004, which was followed by a departmental enquiry, which culminated in Ext.P17 order dated 08.12.2006 removing him from service with effect from 02.04.1995. This writ petition is filed under the above circumstances. 3. Even though Ext.P17 order was passed as early as on 08.12.2006, petitioner approached this Court only in the year 2016. According to the petitioner, the order Ext.P17 was not communicated to him and he came to know about it only after he submitted applications under the Right to Information Act. According to him, he came to know about the rejection of his application for voluntary retirement also, only on information collected under the Right to Information Act. He has produced Ext.P22 representation dated 15.04.2016, in which he had requested to return the original document No.1522 in respect of his property, which was produced before the respondents along with his application for house building advance in the year 1992; since the document was not received he had approached this Court in W.P.(C). No.17395/2016. He again requested to accept the application for voluntary retirement by submitting Ext.P22 representation. By judgment dated 18.05.2016, this Court directed the respondents to consider and pass orders on the said representation. Thereafter, the first respondent issued Ext.P24 order, in which it was stated that petitioner who joined KSEB on 19.12.1974 did not have qualifying service of 20 years, as on the date of his application for voluntary retirement i.e., on 06.02.1995. Accordingly, his request was declined by the Chief Engineer (Electrical) as per Rule 56 of Part III KSR. Thereafter, the first respondent issued Ext.P24 order, in which it was stated that petitioner who joined KSEB on 19.12.1974 did not have qualifying service of 20 years, as on the date of his application for voluntary retirement i.e., on 06.02.1995. Accordingly, his request was declined by the Chief Engineer (Electrical) as per Rule 56 of Part III KSR. It was also stated that disciplinary action was initiated against him for the unauthorized absence and he was removed from service as per order dated 08.12.2006. The Board directed the Chief Engineer to take steps to disburse the GPF amount due to the petitioner. The petitioner approached this Court, at this stage. 4. The petitioner has not stated any reason for the delay in approaching the Court, though it is seen that petitioner submitted application for voluntary retirement as early as on 06.02.1995 and the disciplinary action taken was for unauthorized absence on the very same date. 5. According to the petitioner, when the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 02.04.1995, he was having 20 years of qualifying service and going by the proviso to Rule 56(iv) of part III KSR when permission is not granted for retirement before the date from which an employee requested for relieving him on voluntary retirement, the retirement shall become effective from the date specified in the notice. While clause (iii) Rule 56 provides that an employee shall make sure before he submits application for retirement that he has put in 20 years of qualifying service, according to the proviso to Rule 56(iv) the refusal to grant permission before the intended date of retirement will result in deemed retirement of the employee. 6. In this case the petitioner did not get any intimation on his application Ext.P1. The respondents have produced Ext.R1(a) letter dated 29.07.1996, by which the Chief Engineer informed the Deputy Chief Engineer that the request of petitioner was declined for want of qualifying service for 20 years. The petitioner points out that in Ext.P2 letter dated 10.07.1995, the Deputy Chief Engineer had recommended his application stating that petitioner had completed 20 years of service including leave without allowance on medical and personal grounds (not for employment abroad) and recommending his application for voluntary retirement with effect from 02.04.1995. The petitioner points out that in Ext.P2 letter dated 10.07.1995, the Deputy Chief Engineer had recommended his application stating that petitioner had completed 20 years of service including leave without allowance on medical and personal grounds (not for employment abroad) and recommending his application for voluntary retirement with effect from 02.04.1995. From Ext.P3 proceedings of the Chief Engineer, it is seen that petitioner had availed leave without allowance for a period of 174 days from 11.03.1993 to 31.08.1993, 94 days from 1.09.1993 to 03.12.1993 (personal ground) and 483 days from 4.12.1993 to 01.04.1995 (medical ground). It was further stated that the leave for the period from 11.03.1993 to 31.08.1993 will not count for increment whereas the leave for the period from 4.12.1993 to 01.04.1995 will count for increment. 7. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner had availed leave without allowance for a period of 815 days and the said period of leave without allowance was not liable to be counted for calculating increments. According to them the period which counted for increments alone will be reckoned as qualifying service for pension. Since the petitioner did not have the qualifying service of 20 years which counted for increments. According to them, the petitioner was not entitled to get his application for voluntary retirement allowed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that Rule 26 of Part III KSR, as it stood at the relevant time when he submitted application for voluntary retirement read as follows: "Time passed on leave of all kinds with or without allowances will count as qualifying service unless otherwise specified." 9. Rule 26 was amended for excluding the period of leave without allowance except when it is availed under Rule 88 on medical certificate or under Rule 91A etc., from the purview of qualifying service, only as per G.O.(P).456/2009 dated 19.10.2009. Therefore as on 06.04.1995 the period of leave without allowance availed by the petitioner was liable to be reckoned as qualifying service, going by Rule 26 of Part III KSR. As long as there was no condition fixed by the respondents while granting leave to the petitioner, to the contrary, the leave availed by the petitioner, is liable to be counted towards qualifying service. 10. As long as there was no condition fixed by the respondents while granting leave to the petitioner, to the contrary, the leave availed by the petitioner, is liable to be counted towards qualifying service. 10. Rule 56(iii) & (iv) reads as follows: "56 (iii) The person retiring voluntarily should make sure before applying for retirement that he has put in 20 years' of qualifying service. The rounding of qualifying service prescribed in rule 57 is not permissible at this stage." (iv) Voluntary retirement of an employee shall become effective on the grant of permission to retire by the authority competent to make appointment to the post." 11. Proviso to Rule 56 (iv) which reads as follows: "Provided that where the authority competent to make appointment to the post does not refuse to grant permission for retirement before the date on which the employee wishes to retire specified in the notice under clause (i), the retirement shall become effective from the date specified in the notice." 12. Under the above circumstances going by the proviso to Rule 56 (iv), the application for voluntary retirement submitted by the petitioner should be deemed to have been allowed, consequent to which the petitioner would have been entitled to all the retirement benefits, with reference to the date of his retirement namely, 02.04.1995. 13. However, it is mysterious that petitioner was keeping quite all these years even after the rejection of his request for voluntary retirement or the order of removal. In the above circumstances, petitioner will not be at entitled to any interest on the benefits due to him. He will be entitled to only the retirement benefits due to him on the basis of the deemed retirement with effect from 02.04.1995. On account of the delay in approaching this court, prayer for interest stands rejected. 14. There shall be a direction to the respondents to grant all the retirement benefits due to petitioner 02.04.1995, along with arrears and benefits of revision of pension from time to time, within a period of 'three months' from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent.