JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. Heard Mr. H.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.A. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 1 to 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus against the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue in service. 3. Background involving the case is that petitioner joined in the service of Orissa State Financial Corporation as a Collection Assistant on 01.04.1986. While continuing as such, he was promoted to the post of Assistant in the year 1998. It is alleged that when opposite party nos. 1 and 2 along with other Senior Officers of the Corporation visited Dhenkanal and Angul Recovery Cell from the Head Office, petitioner and others were threatened to opt for voluntary retirement, which was stated to be floated very shortly and also intimated that they will otherwise be forced to ask for compulsory retirement. The Corporation floated the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short ‘VRS’) on 13.09.2005. Petitioner pursuant to such scheme applied to go under VRS by filing application on 30.09.2005. But finding no other source of livelihood and after due consultation with the family members, petitioner sought for withdrawal of the VRS application on 14.10.2005. It is alleged that after filing the application, it is based on request of the petitioner to withdraw his VRS application, petitioner was allowed to work from 26.10.2005 to 31.10.2005, whereafter he has not been allowed to work, which gave rise for filing the present writ petition. 4. Sri. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner taking to the pleadings involving the writ petition as well as the documents brought to the notice of the Court through the Voluntary Retirement Scheme floated vide Annexure-1 series, the procedure of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme under Clause-3.0 reads as under: 3.0. Procedure: 3.1. The eligible employees who desires to seek Voluntary Retirement may apply unconditionally to the Managing Director of the Corporation through his/her Head of the Department or Branch Manager as the case may be, in the prescribed format. 3.2. The Date of acceptance of application for voluntary retirement by the competent authority shall be treated as the date of voluntary retirement. 3.3. The decision of the Managing Director regarding the acceptance/rejection of the V.R. application shall be communicated to the employee within 30 (thirty) days of submission of the application. 5. Taking cue from the above provision, Sri. 3.2. The Date of acceptance of application for voluntary retirement by the competent authority shall be treated as the date of voluntary retirement. 3.3. The decision of the Managing Director regarding the acceptance/rejection of the V.R. application shall be communicated to the employee within 30 (thirty) days of submission of the application. 5. Taking cue from the above provision, Sri. Mohanty, leaned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though petitioner has submitted an application to avail the benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the Corporation as envisaged under Annexure-1 series but before any decision being taken and any communication is made to the petitioner following the condition, i.e. Clause 3.3 of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, petitioner submitted an application on 14.10.2005 opting to withdraw his VRS application. 6. Referring to the application at Annexure-4 series, Sri. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate his claim submitted that the order of acceptance of VRS was passed on 24.10.2005, as reflected under Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, he thus contended that since the withdrawal application at the instance of the petitioner was filed on 14.10.2005, i.e. much before acceptance of VRS application by the Corporation, it is in the interest of justice the authority should have accepted the withdrawal application first rather than accepting the VRS application, which has already been requested for withdrawal prior to decision of the establishment on the same. 7. Taking through the decision in the case of Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 721 decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Manoj Kumar, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 375 , Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for the application of both the judgments to the case of petitioner at hand, the writ petition should succeed. 8. In his opposition Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for the application of both the judgments to the case of petitioner at hand, the writ petition should succeed. 8. In his opposition Mr. C.A. Rao, learned Senior counsel appearing for the OSFC referring to the VRS condition in the scheme vide Annexure-1 series taking this Court to the decision of the Authority vide Annexure-B to the counter affidavit contended that not only the request of the petitioner to avail the VRS benefit had been accepted by the establishment by passing appropriate order on 24.10.2005 but has already communicated the same to the petitioner as borne out from the decision for withdrawal of the VRS scheme made by the petitioner vide Annexure-B. Reading through the documents under Annexure-3 and the disclosure under Annexure-5 of the writ petition, counter affidavit as well as the writ petition respectively, Sri. Rao, learned Senior Counsel attempted to demonstrate the case of the opposite party. For the disclosure at Annexure-5, Sri. Rao submitted that it is apparent that the petitioner was already aware of the decision of the authority as clearly admitted by him through his letter dated 03.11.2005, Annexure-5. It is on the premises that there is already communication of the decision of the establishment to the petitioner. Sri. Rao, learned Senior Counsel further contended that once the application of the petitioner opting VRS is accepted and decision of the authority has been communicated to the petitioner, there is cession of the employer and employee relationship and therefore no further request can be entertainable. Sri. Rao, learned Senior Counsel in support of his contention has also cited two decisions. Referring to a decision of this Court in the case of Raj Kishore Sahu v. State of Orissa, (W.P. (C) No. 1108 of 2006, disposed of on 10.12.2009), for the common issue involving therein involving the petitioner here and the petitioner therein in deciding the case Sri. Rao attempted to apply the said decision to the case at hand. Similarly, referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1969 SC 180 , Sri. Rao, learned Senior Counsel reading through paragraph-5 therein has also attempted to apply the ratio therein to the case at hand. In the above circumstances, Mr. Similarly, referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1969 SC 180 , Sri. Rao, learned Senior Counsel reading through paragraph-5 therein has also attempted to apply the ratio therein to the case at hand. In the above circumstances, Mr. Rao, learned Senior Counsel prayed this Court for dismissal of the writ petition for having no merit. 9. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds there is no dispute that the OSFC has floated a Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 13.09.2005 appearing at Annexure-1 series. There is also no dispute that the petitioner in terms of the conditions therein applied for availing voluntary retirement by making application on 30.09.2005, vide Annexure-2. It is also not disputed that petitioner also applied for withdrawal of his VRS application by filing an application for withdrawal vide Annexure-4 on 14.10.2005. It is at this stage taking into consideration the documents through Annexure-B of the counter affidavit of Orissa State Financial Corporation Limited, this Court finds the decision of the authority accepting the VRS application of the petitioner was taken on 24.10.2005, which is admittedly after the petitioner filing his application for withdrawal of his VRS application on 14.10.2005. This apart this Court again finds that the petitioner was even allowed to work from 26.10.2005 till 31.10.2005. It is on this score alone this Court observes since the petitioner had already filed an application for withdrawal of the VRS application prior to the decision taken by the Orissa State Financial Corporation on 24.10.2005, the order accepting the VRS application of the petitioner subsequent to filing of application for withdrawal of the VRS application becomes bad. 10. Coming to the other grounds raised such as for the specific condition in the VRS application under Annexure-1 series vide Clause-3.3 for the provision in the VRS quoted at para-4 of this judgment, it was incumbent on the part of the Orissa State Financial Corporation to make communication of its decision of acceptance/rejection of the VRS application to the employee within thirty days of submission of the application. There being no material to establish that there is even any communication of the decisions of the authority on the petitioner, this Court finds mere filing of Annexure-B through the counter affidavit cannot be construed to be a communication of such decision to the petitioner. There being no material to establish that there is even any communication of the decisions of the authority on the petitioner, this Court finds mere filing of Annexure-B through the counter affidavit cannot be construed to be a communication of such decision to the petitioner. 11. It is next reading the documents at Annexure-B to the counter affidavit of the opposite parties, this Court finds though the corresponding letter dated 24.10.2005 is addressed to the petitioner, namely, Sukanta Kumar Sarangi but the opposite party is unable to throw any light on the service of any such letter on the petitioner herein, except there is observation in the same letter that copy of this decision is communicated to the Joint General Manager, Finance Department/Branch DGM/Branch Manager, Angul for favour of information and necessary action. It is taking into consideration the letter at this stage vide Anneuxre-5 strongly relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the opposite parties to establish that under no stretch of imagination it can be construed that petitioner had no intimation of the decision of the authorities on acceptance of VRS application of the petitioner, on perusal of letter dated 03.11.2005 since issued much subsequent to the decision of the authority on 24.10.2005 any observation made therein cannot be construed that petitioner was communicated with the decision at Annexure-B. Not only this, this Court here again finds even after so called acceptance letter dated 24.10.2005, the petitioner was allowed to work from 26.10.2005 to 31.10.2005. This Court here thus finds for allowing the petitioner to work even after their order, w.e.f. 26.10.2005 to 31.10.2005, there was no scope for the management to allow the petitioner to continue in his service. Thus, this Court finds the acceptance letter dated 24.10.2005 might be an afterthought. For the observation of this Court in the above paragraph that decision involving the VRS offer having been taken after receipt of the application for withdrawal on 24.10.2005 even after acceptance of the application for withdrawal of VRS application dated 14.10.2005, this Court reiterates its decision holding that the decision, vide Annexure-B of the counter affidavit is bad in law. 12. 12. It is here taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 721 , this Court finds the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraphs-65 to 69, 99, 100 and 113 observe/held as follows: (65) A proposal is made when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything with a view to obtaining the assent of the other to such act or abstinence (See Section 2(a)). Herein the banks by reason of the scheme or otherwise have not expressed their willingness to do or abstain from doing anything with a view to obtaining assent of the employees to such act. It will bear repetition to state that not only the power of the bank to accept or reject such application is absolutely discretionary, it, as noticed hereinbefore, could also amend or rescind the scheme. The Scheme, therefore, cannot be said to be an offer which, on the acceptance by the employee, would fructify in a concluded contract. (66) The proposal of the employee when accepted by the Bank would constitute a promise within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act. Only then the promise becomes an enforceable contract. In the instant case the banks when floating the scheme did not signify that on the employees assenting thereto a concluded contract would come into being in terms whereof they would be permitted to retire voluntarily and get the benefits thereunder. (67) Furthermore, in terms of the said scheme no consideration passed so as to constitute an agreement. Once it is found that by giving their option under the scheme, the employees did not derive an enforceable right, the same in absence of any consideration would be void in terms of Section 2(g) of the Contract Act as opposed to Section 2(h) thereof. (68) Furthermore, even by opting for the scheme as floated by the banks, no consideration is passed far less amounting to reciprocal promise. (69) Once it is found, as would appear from the position rendered by this court that the employees do not have an enforceable right upon making an option the same would be void in terms of Section 2(g) of the Contract Act as opposed to Section 2(h) thereof. (69) Once it is found, as would appear from the position rendered by this court that the employees do not have an enforceable right upon making an option the same would be void in terms of Section 2(g) of the Contract Act as opposed to Section 2(h) thereof. xxxxxxxxxxxx (99) In that case, thus, a resignation which was not in praesenti has been held to be capable of being withdrawn. It did not constitute a juristic act. (100) We may notice that in Jai Ram v. Union of India ( AIR 1954 SC 584 ) it was held: “It may be conceded that it is open to a servant, who has expressed a desire to retire from service and applied to his superior officer, to give him the requisite permission, to change his mind subsequently and ask for cancellation of the permission thus obtained; but, he can be allowed to do so as long as he continues in service and not after it has terminated.” xxxxxxxxxxxx (113) The submission of learned Attorney General that as soon as an offer is made by an employee, the same would amount to resignation in praesenti cannot be accepted. The scheme was in force for a fixed period. A decision by the authority was required to be taken and till a decision was taken, the jural relationship of employer and employee continued and the concerned employees would have been entitled to payment of all salaries and allowances etc. Thus it cannot be said to be a case where the offer was given in praesenti but the same would be prospective in nature keeping in view of the fact that it was come into force at a later date and that too subject to acceptance thereof by the employer. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the decisions of this Court, as referred to herein before, shall apply to the facts of the present case also.” 13. For the support of law to the case at hand, for the declaration of this Court, the decision of the authority in acceptance of the VRS application vide Annexure-B is bad. This Court while allowing the writ petition directs the OSFC to treat the petitioner to be continuing in service all through. For the support of law to the case at hand, for the declaration of this Court, the decision of the authority in acceptance of the VRS application vide Annexure-B is bad. This Court while allowing the writ petition directs the OSFC to treat the petitioner to be continuing in service all through. Since petitioner has been illegally prevented from discharging his duty, but however considering that petitioner has not worked all through, this Court directs the OSFC to pay the arrear wages to the petitioner minimum @ 50% of the salary for the period he was prevented to work. 14. It is at this stage, this Court also taking into consideration the interim direction of this Court during pendency of the writ petition directing the opposite parties to pay him a sum of Rs. 3,63,958/- without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the writ petition, the said amount if paid to the petitioner may be adjusted as against the entitlement made under the direction of this Court. The balance arrear amount shall be paid to the petitioner along with interest @7% all through. The entire amount shall be calculated by undertaking the exercise within a period of one month. Payment of balance amount be made to the petitioner within a period of fifteen days thereafter. 15. With the above observation, the writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to cost.