JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. - Petitioner was appointed in Horticulture Department, who was promoted as Chief Assistant w.e.f 02.11.2016. He applied for voluntary retirement under Rule 56 (c) of Fundamental Rules, on 21.02.2018. Thereafter, petitioner moved another application on 04.04.2018, in which he indicated the date of his retirement as 31.05.2018. The Appointing Authority, i.e., Director, Horticulture accepted petitioner's request vide order dated 24.05.2018. 2. Subsequently, on 25.05.2018, petitioner moved an application seeking permission to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement, however, he was relieved from service on 31.05.2018. Subsequently, petitioner's request for withdrawal of application for V.R.S. was allowed by the Director, Horticulture, vide order dated 02.11.2018 and petitioner resumed duties on 03.11.2018. 3. When the matter was brought to the notice of the State Government, the State Government issued a letter on 19.05.2021, wherein it was held that as per the directions issued by Finance Department, re-appointment after voluntary retirement is not permissible and directed the Competent Authority to take appropriate action in the matter. 4. Pursuant to the said letter issued by the State Government, Director Horticulture issued a notice to the petitioner on 09.11.2021 asking him to show cause as to why he may not be relieved from his duties as per his request for voluntary retirement. Request made by Director Horticulture to the State Government for reconsidering petitioner's claim for reappointment vide letter dated 28.06.2021 was also turned down by the State Government vide letter dated 29.09.2021. 5. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by Director, Horticulture, whereby petitioner has been informed that he shall stand relieved from his duties in terms of his request for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.12.2021. 6. The question, which falls for consideration in the present writ petition is whether Director, Horticulture was justified in permitting the petitioner to resume duties once he stood retired pursuant to his request; and whether under Rule 56 (c) of Financial Hand Book, Vol. II to IV, formal acceptance of request for voluntary retirement, would be needed as in the case of the resignation or not. The matter requires scrutiny. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suitable order be passed on the interim relief application. 8. II to IV, formal acceptance of request for voluntary retirement, would be needed as in the case of the resignation or not. The matter requires scrutiny. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suitable order be passed on the interim relief application. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, grant of ex-parte interim relief to the petitioner would not be proper, especially when he can be compensated in terms of money, if his writ petition is allowed. While recovery of the amount of salary, if paid to him pursuant to interim order would not be possible, in the event of dismissal of writ petition. Even otherwise also relief of restoration of his status as a government employee can be granted only upon final adjudication of the writ petition and such relief cannot be granted through an interim order. 9. In such view of the matter, Interim Relief Application (I.A. No.2 of 2021) is rejected. 10. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State may file counter-affidavit within four weeks and two weeks thereafter for filing rejoinder-affidavit. 11. List this case immediately, after four weeks. 12. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the parties within 48 hours.