ORDER : The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following reliefs:- “i) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may be issued to the respondents to release the pension/family pension and other retiral benefits such as leave encashment, gratuity, etc. etc. etc. (ii) To allow interest on the illegally withheld pension and other retiral benefits from the date of expiry of 3 months notice for volunteer retirement i.e. 31-05-2017 till the date of release.” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Sanitary Inspector on 28.06.1984 in the erstwhile Municipal Committee, Kullu, now Municipal Council, Kullu. On 28.02.2017, he submitted an application to 3rd respondent for voluntary retirement. The same, according to the petitioner, was considered and accepted by the Municipal Council, Kullu on 22.04.2017 and then sent to the Director, Urban Development, who returned the same vide Office letter dated 09.05.2017 with a direction to the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Kullu, to provide certain documents. 3. The Executive Officer, Kullu, in turn, vide letter dated 24.07.2017 asked the petitioner to account for/reconcile a sum of Rs.26,08,550/- plus Rs.10,000/- given as an advance from time to time and even in reply thereto, the petitioner submitted the details of vouchers that have already been submitted. 4. However, Since, the monthly pension/family pension and other retiral benefits were not released in favour of the petitioner, therefore, he got served a legal notice upon the respondents followed by a reminder, but of no avail, hence this petition. 5. Respondent No.3 i.e. Municipal Council, Kullu, alone has contested the petition by filing reply wherein it is averred that the replying respondent vide resolution No. 6 dated 12.04.2017 after considering the application for premature retirement of the petitioner forwarded such application for approval vide letter dated 01.05.2017. 6. The Director, Urban Development, vide letter dated 09.05.2017 directed the replying respondent to examine the required documents provided under the H.P. Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1976. The replying respondent looked into the matter and found some irregularities/misappropriations in the matters of advance(s) that had been given to the petitioner by the replying respondent from time to time for maintaining sanitary facilities within the area of Council. 7. The advances outstanding in the name of the petitioner were pointed out by the Audit Officer vide memo No.23 dated 10.05.2016 worth Rs.26,18,550/-. 7. The advances outstanding in the name of the petitioner were pointed out by the Audit Officer vide memo No.23 dated 10.05.2016 worth Rs.26,18,550/-. This amount was received by the petitioner in advance and was not adjusted even after a period of 9 to 57 months from the date it was granted. 8. The replying respondent thereafter issued a letter dated 24.07.2017 to the petitioner to produce the documents in respect of the advance given to him and asked him to reconcile the aforesaid amount. When the petitioner failed to do so, the replying respondent once again issued a letter dated 11.12.2017 asking the petitioner to clear all the adjustments with respect to the advance given to the petitioner as his pension case was pending because of such irregularities/misappropriations in the outstanding advances. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner produced the vouchers with respect to the expenditure and adjustments of advance taken by the petitioner, but the same were only to the tune of Rs.17,30,650/- out of an amount of Rs.26,18,550/- and failed to produce the vouchers/documents with respect to remaining amount of Rs.8,89,900/-. In these circumstances, the case for premature retirement of the petitioner was not accepted by respondent No.2. 10. The documents forwarded by the replying respondent were returned by the Director, Rural Development, to re-examine the case and to take necessary action in the matter. The application moved by the petitioner has not been accepted and consequently the request made by him for premature retirement has not been allowed. 11. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder wherein it is averred that once the application moved by the petitioner for premature retirement is accepted, then the version put-forth by the respondent is not correct. It is further averred that since respondent No.3 has admitted to have reconciled the amount of Rs.17,30,650, the remaining amount of Rs.8,89,900/- needs to be sorted out at the level of respondent No.3. 12. It is claimed that the petitioner was drawing basic pay of Rs.25,250/- plus Rs.4400/- grade pay and Rs. 38,545/- as D.A. at the time of retirement. The emoluments of the petitioner comes to Rs.68,204/-. The amount of retiral benefits with-held by the respondents for 4 years and 5 months are given below in the chart:- 1. Pension per month i.e. 50% of the emoluments Rs.34000/- Approx 4.5 years=18,02,000/- 2. 38,545/- as D.A. at the time of retirement. The emoluments of the petitioner comes to Rs.68,204/-. The amount of retiral benefits with-held by the respondents for 4 years and 5 months are given below in the chart:- 1. Pension per month i.e. 50% of the emoluments Rs.34000/- Approx 4.5 years=18,02,000/- 2. Total Leave due 178 days i.e. for 6 months @ 68000/- salary per month admissible for leave encashment Rs.4,08,000/- 3. Gratuity restricted to 10 Lakhs Rs.10,00,000/- Total retiral benefits Rs.32,10,000/- 13. This amount, according to the petitioner, is subject to increase due to Sixth Pay Commission and enhancement of D.A. from time to time. It is averred that when three months’ notice was served upon the respondents for voluntary retirement after completion of 33 years of service and serving of three months’ notice under Rule 37-A read with Rule 48 of CCS Pension Rules stands accepted vide resolution, then the same is deemed to be accepted. In further paragraphs of the rejoinder, it has been reiterated that advance worth Rs.8,89,900/- has to be reconciled by respondent No.3. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 15. Section 3 of the H.P. Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1976, as relied upon by the respondents reads as under:- “PREMATURE RETIREMENT 3.(1)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (2) Any Government employee may, after giving atleast three months previous notice in writing to the appropriate authority retire from service on the date on which he:- (a) Completes 30 years of qualifying service; or (b) attains the age of: (i) 50 years in respect of Class-I and Class-II officers who have entered Govt. service before attaining the age of thirty five years; (ii) 55 years in case of all other Class-I and Class-II officers and all the Class-III employees; and (iii) 55 years in case of such Class-IV employees who entered Govt. service after 23rd July, 1966. Provided that any Government servant with satisfactory service record may, after giving notice of not less than 3 months in writing to the appropriate authority, retire from service on completion of 20 years of regular service after such notice has been accepted by the appropriate authority; Provided further that no employee under suspension or against whom disciplinary proceedings are either contemplated or have already been initiated shall be allowed to retire except with the specific approval of the appropriate authority.” 16. The aforesaid Rule came up for consideration before the learned Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P.(T) No. 14176/2008 titled Dr. S.S. Negi vs. State of H.P. , decided on 22.04.2010, wherein it was observed that Rule 3(2) itself is intended to give option to the incumbent concerned to retire voluntarily from service subject to the satisfaction of the required conditions under the rules. 17. It was further held that once an employee satisfies the conditions required for premature retirement as prescribed under Rule 3(2) of the Rules, no other formal order is required for the employee to retire from service. The rule itself enables the employees to retire even without any formal order. If the retirement cannot be permitted, the employee is to be intimated about the same during the period of service that too on the grounds available under the rules. 18. The petitioner in the instant case has satisfied the required conditions since he has completed 50 years of age and joined the service before the age of 35 years. The rule clearly provides that a government employee after giving at least three months prior notice in writing to the appropriate authority is to retire from service on the date on which he completed the age or intended date of retirement. The second proviso would indicate that in case of an employee against whom disciplinary proceedings are either contemplated or initiated, such employee cannot be allowed to retire except with the specific approval of the appropriate authority. 19. The inference can only be that in case of an employee, who has otherwise satisfied the required conditions under rule 3(2), no formal sanction is required for retirement as the retirement takes effect from the date as per the rules. 20. However, it is open to the State or the Appointing Authority to decline to accept the request for premature retirement in two contingencies (i) disciplinary proceedings are in contemplation (ii) disciplinary proceedings had already been initiated. In the instant case, even on facts, none of the aforesaid contingencies exists. 21. Once, an employee satisfied the conditions for premature retirement as prescribed under rule 3(2) of the Rules, no other formal orders are required for the employee to retire from service as the Rules itself enable the employee to retire even without any formal order. 22. In the instant case, even on facts, none of the aforesaid contingencies exists. 21. Once, an employee satisfied the conditions for premature retirement as prescribed under rule 3(2) of the Rules, no other formal orders are required for the employee to retire from service as the Rules itself enable the employee to retire even without any formal order. 22. It would be noticed that the petitioner submitted his application for voluntary retirement on 28.02.2017 and the same along with copy of Resolution No. 6 dated 12.04.2017 was forwarded to the Director, Urban Development. The Director, Urban Development, did not reject the request of the petitioner, but only directed the Municipal Council, Kullu, to supply certain information/documents at once for taking further necessary action in the matter as the petitioner had to retire on 31.05.2017. 23. The Council instead of sending the said information at once to the Director issued a letter dated 24.07.2017 to the petitioner for reconciling the accounts, as is evident, from the letter dated 24.07.2017, which reads as under:- “...From Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. To Sh. Bhibash Acharya, Sanitary Inspector, Municipal Council Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. Dated : Kullu the 24-07-2017 Subject:- Volunteer Retirement (V.R.S.) regarding. Sir, With reverence to this office letter No. 8718 dated 06-07-2016 vide which you were asked to give account of advance Rs. 26,08,550/-, which has not been given by you till date. Therefore, you are again asked regarding above advance Rs.26,08,550/- + 10,000/- which was advanced to you on dated 04-04-2016 and you are required to give the total account of Rs. 26,18,550/- to this office otherwise it will be considered that there is no documents with you regarding this transaction. Yours faithfully sd/- Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Kullu...” 24. It is only after lapse of 11 months that the Council finally submitted the documents to the Director, who returned the same vide his letter dated 01.05.2018 with a direction to the Council to re-examine the case in light of the observations made in the letter. It shall be apposite to reproduce the aforesaid letter which reads as under:- “From Director, Urban Development, Himachal Pradesh. To Executive Officer, Municipal Council Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. Subject:- Regarding pension/family pension case of Sh. Niti Bibhash Acharya, Sanitary Inspector, MC Kullu. Memo; Reference your letter No. MCK/EA/ Pension/17/1055 dated 16.03.2018, on the subject cited above. It shall be apposite to reproduce the aforesaid letter which reads as under:- “From Director, Urban Development, Himachal Pradesh. To Executive Officer, Municipal Council Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. Subject:- Regarding pension/family pension case of Sh. Niti Bibhash Acharya, Sanitary Inspector, MC Kullu. Memo; Reference your letter No. MCK/EA/ Pension/17/1055 dated 16.03.2018, on the subject cited above. In this context, your attention is invited towards this office letter No. UD-H(B)(2)-1/95-2683- 84 dated 09.05.2017 (Photocopy enclosed) vide which you were directed to examine the case of Sh. Bibhash Acharya, Sanitary Inspector under H.P. Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1976 and supply certain information/documents for deciding the pre-mature retirement case of the official, whereas you have forwarded the pension case of above official for sanction of pension in his favour after lapse of 11 months period without supplying the requisite information/documents prior to deciding the voluntary retirement of the above official from the competent authority. In view of the above, pension papers and Service-Book of the official received (in original) are returned herewith with the directions to reexamine the case in view of the facts elaborated above and take further necessary action in the matter, accordingly. Encl: Service-Book & other relevant documents. Sd/- (Dr. D.K. Gupta) Director, Urban Development, Himachal Pradesh.” 25. The aforesaid narration of facts would go to indicate that the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was though not expressly accepted, but then there is no requirement of an order of acceptance of the notice to be communicated to the employee nor can it be said that non-communication of acceptance should be treated as amounting to withholding of permission. 26. Apart from the above, there were no disciplinary proceedings contemplated or initiated against the petitioner at the relevant time, therefore, also no specific approval of acceptance of request for voluntary retirement was required from the respondents, rather, such acceptance was automatic in the instant case. 27. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is deemed to have voluntarily retired from service from the date as mentioned in the application for voluntary retirement i.e. 31.05.2017. 27. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is deemed to have voluntarily retired from service from the date as mentioned in the application for voluntary retirement i.e. 31.05.2017. However, since the amounts qua advances taken by the petitioner are yet to be reconciled and the petitioner infact has made a specific request to intimate him about the balance amount vide his letter dated 14.03.2019, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to allow this petition and pass the following directions:- “(i) That the petitioner shall be deemed to have retired from service from the date as mentioned in the application i.e. 31.05.2017; (ii) Respondent No.3 shall after giving an opportunity of producing the documents/ records, reconcile the same with the petitioner and intimate the balance amount to be paid by the petitioner to the Council on or before 15.11.2021; (iii) The due and outstanding amount shall be paid by the petitioner on or before 31.03.2022; (iv) In the event of such deposit, the petitioner shall be entitled to pension/family pension and other retiral benefits such as leave encashment/gratuity etc.; (v) Since, both the parties are entitled to recover the amount from each other, therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no interest shall be payable on the amount due to the respective parties. 28. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.