ORDER 1. The present appeals impugn the common judgment and order dated 28th February, 2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.30490 of 2018. 2. The said Writ Petition had been filed against an order dated 22nd June, 2018 (Annexure P9) which denied the present appellants (writ petitioners before the High Court), pension. They further sought a declaration that employees of Ayurvedic, Unani and Homeopathic Aided Institutions opting for voluntary retirement/resignation after completing the qualifying service period, would be entitled to pension and gratuity benefits. 3. Before proceeding to the judgment impugned before us, it would be essential to take note of the reason by which the Government of Maharashtra vide the Notification dated 22nd June, 2018, as noticed above, denied the present appellants’ pensionary and other benefits. The order records the reasoning, which is common to all the appellants. We extract the relevant portion of the Notification which concerns the appellant in C.A.No.9046/2022, as under : “1) Vaidya Dinesh Gajanan Kamat :- Mr. Kamat is the first petitioner and he has resigned the post of Lecturer of surgery on 12.11.2009. The institution has accepted the resignation of Mr. Kamat on 12.11.2009 and he has been relieved after official time. As per the provision of Rule 46 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982, if any employee desires to resign then he shall intimate in writing to the appointing authority prior to one month or shall deposit advance salary of one month. There is no provision prescribed in the Rules regarding providing the benefits to the employees after resignation. The Govt. has not yet made applicable the scheme of voluntary retirement for the employees in Govt. aided Ayurved and Unani colleges. As per the Govt. decision dtd. 10.08.2016 the benefit of the scheme of retirement and gratuity shall not be payable to Mr. Kamat.” 4. The question that the High Court was confronted with was whether the appellants who had resigned after completing more than 20 years of service could be treated as applicants for voluntary retirement under Section 66 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). The High Court after detailed consideration of the said Rule observed – “28. The High Court after detailed consideration of the said Rule observed – “28. In our opinion, the language of Rule 66 is very clear and leaves no manner of doubt that for a voluntary retirement to take effect, the procedure laid down in Rule 66 has to be followed. Moreover, voluntary retirement becomes effective from the date of expiry of notice period of three months, unless on a request made in writing to the appointing authority, which decides to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons therefor, in which case the period can be curtailed. 29. As per clause (2) of Rule 66, the notice of voluntary retirement requires acceptance by the appointing authority and the appointing authority can refuse to grant permission as per proviso to clause (2) of Rule 66. It is only when the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of period in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. From the materials on record, it is apparent that the intention of the petitioners was to resign from service. It is not as if the petitioners have given notice of three months and made a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept the resignation before expiry of three months giving reasons therefor. For that would have enabled us to juxtapose Rule 66 with the facts of the present case and come to the conclusion that the essential components of Rule 66 stand substantially fulfilled. As can be seen from the narration, none of the essential components of Rule 66 are fulfilled or substantially fulfilled for even then it may have been possible for us to consider the ‘resignation’ as ‘voluntary retirement’ in view of the law laid down by the apex court in the case of Asger Ibrahim Amin (supra).” 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. We find no flaw in the reasoning of the High Court. As such, we are not inclined to entertain these appeals and as such, they are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.