JUDGMENT : PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged order dated 25.6.2018 (Annexure 7) by which his application for appointment on the post of chaukidar has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner’s father was due to retire on 30.11.2017 from the post of chaukidar. He submitted his application dated 9.10.2017 (Annexure 4) along with required documents of his son (petitioner) before the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi for voluntary retirement and for appointment of the petitioner on the post of chaukidar under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the light of resolution passed by the Government of Bihar vide Letter No. 1896 dated 5.3.2014 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). On consideration of the matter, the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi vide proceedings/order dated 25.6.2018 (Annexure 7) rejected the application dated 9.10.2017 (Annexure 4) on the ground that the same was not submitted in time. 3. While assailing the impugned order dated 25.6.2018 (Annexure 7), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order is arbitrary and bad in law. He submits that the father of the petitioner submitted his application 1 month and 21 days prior to his retirement and nominated his son for appointment on the post of chaukidar under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Thereafter, he did not work as chaukidar nor did he receive the salary till his retirement. He submits that the application for appointment of the petitioner was submitted well within time stipulated in Clause 3(ii)(k) or 3(ii)(Gh) of the Resolution vide letter no. 1896 dated 5.3.2014 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) in which it has been clearly stated that such chaukidar seeking voluntary retirement and naming a successor should file his application under VRS and the nomination of ward at least one month before the date on which he is seeking voluntary retirement. In the case in hand, petitioner’s father was due to retire on 30.11.2017 and so he filed the said application on 9.10.2017, i.e. 1 month and 21 days earlier from the date of retirement. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of different co-ordinate benches of this Court dated 5.7.2017 and 11.9.2018, respectively passed in C.W.J.C. No. 189/2017 (Jharu Mahto vs. State of Bihar and Others) and other analogous writ petitions and C.W.J.C. No. 18409/2017 (Harendra Roy vs. State of Bihar and Others). 4. Learned counsel for the State filed counter affidavit. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of different co-ordinate benches of this Court dated 5.7.2017 and 11.9.2018, respectively passed in C.W.J.C. No. 189/2017 (Jharu Mahto vs. State of Bihar and Others) and other analogous writ petitions and C.W.J.C. No. 18409/2017 (Harendra Roy vs. State of Bihar and Others). 4. Learned counsel for the State filed counter affidavit. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that as per the guidelines contained in Letter No. 8442 dated 23.10.2017 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition), the chaukidar/dafadar desirous to retire voluntarily and seek appointment of his nominee on the post of chaukidar will have to submit application on the date which falls at least two months before the date of the superannuation. It is further stated that as per guidelines dated 22.6.2018 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) it has been made clear that if a chaukidar is willing to retire voluntarily and seeks appointment of his nominee and submits his application within the prescribed time but goes to receive salary upto the date of his superannuation, he will be not entitled to benefit of voluntary retirement and appointment of his nominee/dependent. It is further stated that the father of the petitioner was going to retire on 30.11.2017 and so he was required to file application for voluntary retirement and for appointment of the petitioner before 30.9.2017 but contrary to the same he submitted this application on 9.10.2017 which was not within the prescribed period for seeking appointment of his nominee. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and perused the materials available on the record as also the judgments of the Court. 6. There is no dispute that the petitioner’s father filed the application seeking voluntary retirement and for appointment of his nominee/petitioner 1 month and 21 days earlier from the date of his retirement, i.e. on 30.11.2017, as such, he squarely complied the provisions of law laid down in either clause, namely, Clause 3(ii)(k) or 3(ii)(Gh) of the Resolution contained in Letter no. 1896 dated 5.3.2014 Rules. In the result, order dated 25.6.2018 (Annexure 7) being contrary to the rules/guidelines and the legal positions discussed above, is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Chaukidar in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. Writ Petition stands allowed.