ORDER : 1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure P/1) whereby the application of the petitioner for voluntarily retirement was allowed with effect from 20.08.2013. 2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was temporarily posted as State Programme Officer (Leprosy) in the office of Directorate Health Services, Raipur vide order dated 19.11.2010. Accordingly, the petitioner rendered his service with utmost sincerity and honesty as State Programme Officer. The copy of the order dated 19.11.2010 is filed as Annexure P/3. As the petitioner suffered from cardiac disease, he made an application for medical leave on 08.04.2013. The copy of the medical leave application is filed as Annexure P/4. In the meanwhile, Dr. K.C. Uraon was posted as State Programme Officer (Leprosy) in the place of petitioner vide order dated 09.05.2013. The copy of the order dated 09.05.2013 is filed as Annexure P/5. Thereafter, the petitioner resumed his duty on 20.05.2013. As the petitioner was not provided joining, then he made an application informing that as he resumed his duty on 20.05.2013 accordingly, he may be posted to his original place of posting i.e. District Leprosy Officer. The copy of application dated 19.07.2013 is filed as Annexure P/6. 3. On 20.08.2013, due to health and family reasons, the petitioner made an application for voluntary retirement. The voluntary retirement application of the petitioner was not considered and even in the meanwhile, the petitioner himself made an application for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement on 21.10.2013 (Annexure P/7). In the above course, the petitioner again made an application for non-consideration of his voluntary retirement application on 24.12.2013 and to provide him joining to his original place of posting i.e. District Leprosy Officer, Bilaspur but no action was taken. The copy of the representation dated 24.12.2013 is filed as Annexure P/8. 4. Even in the meanwhile, one Dr. Netram Beck was appointed as State Programme Officer (Leprosy) on 05.09.2013 and accordingly the post of petitioner was also not vacant. The petitioner made repeated representations for non-consideration of his voluntary retirement application as the State Govt. did not accept the application of the petitioner and also form 29 was not issued to the petitioner in respect to his retiral claims, but no action was taken even after a lapse of about 4 months. The petitioner made repeated representations for non-consideration of his voluntary retirement application as the State Govt. did not accept the application of the petitioner and also form 29 was not issued to the petitioner in respect to his retiral claims, but no action was taken even after a lapse of about 4 months. The copy of the order dated 05.09.2013 is filed as Annexure P/9. On 28.01.2014, the petitioner again made an application to provide him joining to his original place of posting but no action was taken by the respondent authorities. The copy of the representation dated 28.01.2014 is filed as Annexure P/10. Since, no action was being taken by the respondent authorities, the petitioner was left with no option other than to prefer writ petition before this Court and, therefore, he filed the writ petition having W.P.(S) No. 685/2014 and the said petition was disposed of vide order dated 07.02.2014 (Annexure P/11) with direction that if petitioner files representation, the same shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of six weeks. In compliance of the said order, petitioner submitted the representation in the office of respondent no.4 and also respondents no.1 to 3 through speed post on 10.02.2014. The copy of the representation is filed as Annexure P/12. 5. On 12.02.2014, respondent no.4 communicated the impugned order dated 31.01.2014, which was received by the petitioner on 19.02.2014 whereby it has been stated that the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement has been allowed. The copy of the order dated 31.01.2014 and copy of letter dated 12.02.2014 are annexed as Annexure P/1 and Annexure P/2 respectively. Before the recommendation made by respondent no.3 for the application of voluntary retirement of the petitioner before the State Govt. dated 23.10.2013 and before the acceptance of the application for voluntary retirement, the petitioner made an application dated 21.10.2013 for withdrawal of voluntary retirement. The copy of the letter dated 23.10.2013 is filed as Annexure P/13. Before the recommendation made by respondent no.3 for the application of voluntary retirement of the petitioner before the State Govt. dated 23.10.2013 and before the acceptance of the application for voluntary retirement, the petitioner made an application dated 21.10.2013 for withdrawal of voluntary retirement. The copy of the letter dated 23.10.2013 is filed as Annexure P/13. Accordingly, the respondent authorities without considering the grievance of the petitioner with regard to withdrawal of application of Voluntary retirement in an arbitrary manner, allowed the same on 31.01.2014 and in spite of several representations, no any communication was made to the petitioner and when the petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court having W.P.(S) No.685/2014 whereby the order was passed to consider the case of the petitioner within 6 weeks on 07.02.2014, then in a hurry manner, the impugned order was passed and the same was informed through respondent no.4 vide letter dated 12.02.2014 and the petitioner received the same on 19.02.2014. Hence, this petition for the following reliefs:- 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus setting aside the order dated 31.01.14 (Annexure P-1) and direct the respondents' authorities to provide joining to the petitioner in his original place of posting i.e. District Leprosy Officer, Bilaspur. 10.2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a direction to the respondents' directing to provide salary to the petitioner from the period July, 2013 to till date and all other consequential benefits. 10.3. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit and appropriate. 10.4 Cost of the petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and service jurisprudence. In spite of submitting all relevant documents, the respondents did not take any action on the case of the petitioner even after a long time and cause hardship to the petitioner. The petitioner has been approaching from last about 4 months but till date no order was passed for withdrawal of application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement and in regard to the joining of the petitioner, even the salary has not been paid to the petitioner since July, 2013. The petitioner has been approaching from last about 4 months but till date no order was passed for withdrawal of application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement and in regard to the joining of the petitioner, even the salary has not been paid to the petitioner since July, 2013. The respondent authorities without considering the grievance of the petitioner regarding withdrawal of application of voluntary retirement in an arbitrary manner, allowed the same on 31.01.2014 and in spite of several representations, no communication was made to the petitioner and when the petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court having W.P.(S) No.685/2014 whereby the order has been passed to consider the case of the petitioner within 6 weeks on 07.02.2014, then in a hurry manner, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 31.01.2014 was passed and the same has been informed through respondent no.4 vide letter dated 12.02.2014 and the petitioner received the same on 19.02.2014. Therefore, the impugned order dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure P/1) is liable to be set aside and the respondents may be directed to pay the salary of the petitioner from July 2013 to till date and other consequential benefits. 7. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Honb’le Supreme Court in the matter of Shambu Murari Sinha Vs. Project & Development India Ltd. and another, 2002 SCC (L & S) 444. 8. Learned counsel for the State/respondents strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was allowed on 31.01.2014 (Annexure P/1) with effect from 20/08/2013 in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 42 (1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1976). The main ground for challenging the impugned order is that the respondent authorities, without considering the grievance of the petitioner regarding withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement, allowed his application for voluntary retirement in an arbitrary and hurry manner. The petitioner moved an application seeking his voluntary retirement with effect from 20/08/2013 in the prescribed form 28 by depositing three months salary mentioning health and family reasons and the same has been admitted by the petitioner in paragraph 8.6 of the instant petition. It is apparent that by way of the application for voluntary retirement, the petitioner sought his voluntary retirement with effect from 20/08/2013. 9. It is apparent that by way of the application for voluntary retirement, the petitioner sought his voluntary retirement with effect from 20/08/2013. 9. The petitioner moved an application for withdrawal of his earlier application for voluntary retirement on 21/10/2013 vide Annexure P/7 which is not prior to the intended date of his retirement which was 20/08/2013 whereas as per Rule 42(2) of the Rules, 1976, the application for withdrawal of the application for voluntary retirement ought to have been submitted prior to the intended date of retirement by the petitioner /employee who has sought for voluntary retirement. The application of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 20/08/2013 has duly been considered by the answering respondent no. 3 and after due consideration of the facts that the petitioner has already completed the length of 20 years services with the department and there is no any departmental enquiry, dues, demand pending against the petitioner, a recommendation (Annexure P/13) for voluntary retirement of the petitioner with effect from 20/08/2013 in accordance with Rule 42 of the Rules, 1976 has been made to the answering respondent no. 1 and in turn, vide impugned order dated 31/01/2014 (Annexure P/1), the application of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 20/08/2013 was duly allowed and the petitioner has been superannuated voluntarily with effect from 20/08/2013. Therefore, this petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 10. Petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply submitting that the petitioner only made an application on 20.08.2013 for his voluntary retirement which is not his intended date of his retirement. Even the appointing authority did not accept his application and issued letter dated 24.08.2013 (Annexure D-1) directing the petitioner to fill form 28 and deposit 3 months salary as per rule. In the application for voluntary retirement, the petitioner did not mention any date regarding intended date of his retirement and the respondents even did not file the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement along with their reply and even the appointing authority itself admitted that the application is not in proper format and, therefore issued letter dated 24.08.2013 and it is an admitted position that before passing any order on the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement, the application for withdrawal of his VRS was made by him on 21.10.2013. 11. Respondents did not rebut or file any additional documents to the rejoinder. 11. Respondents did not rebut or file any additional documents to the rejoinder. 12. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner was working in the respondent department. On 20.08.2013, petitioner filed application for voluntary retirement and, thereafter on 21.10.2013, he made application for withdrawal of the said application. Again he made application for non-consideration of his application for voluntary retirement on 24.12.2013. By impugned order dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure P/1) his voluntary retirement application was accepted with effect from 20.08.2013. 14. On perusal of the documents, it is clear that the respondent authority did not consider the application of the petitioner for Voluntary retirement. Petitioner filed writ petition i.e. WPS No. 685 of 2014 on the ground that the respondent authorities did not consider his representation dated 21.10.2013 and this Court vide order dated 07.02.2014, directed the respondents to decide the representation within 6 weeks. It is clear from the documents that the petitioner filed application for withdrawal of VRS on 21.10.2013 (Annexure P/7). Subsequently, on 24.12.2013 (Annexure P/8), he again made application for non-consideration of his application for withdrawal of Voluntary Retirement. Thereafter, he again filed an application on 28.01.2014 (Annexure P/10) for the same. 15. It is apparent from the impugned order dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure P/1) that before accepting the resignation of the petitioner, he filed 3 applications for withdrawal of his resignation. 16. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Shambu Murari Sinha Vs. Project & Development India Ltd. and another, 2002 SCC (L & S) 444 held in paras 12, 16 and 19 as under:- 12. The decision in J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India is also to the same effect. This Court held as follows: (SCC p. 560, para 3) "It is now well settled that even if the voluntary retirement notice is moved by an employee and gets accepted by the authority within the time fixed, before the date of retirement is reached, the employee has locus poenitentiae to withdraw the proposal for voluntary retirement. The said view has been taken by a Bench of this Court in the case of Balram Gupta v. Union of India." 16. In Power Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia this Court went a Step further and observed thus: (SCC p. 282, para 7) "7. The said view has been taken by a Bench of this Court in the case of Balram Gupta v. Union of India." 16. In Power Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia this Court went a Step further and observed thus: (SCC p. 282, para 7) "7. It is now settled legal position that unless the employee is relieved of the duty, after acceptance of the offer of voluntary retirement or resignation, jural relationship of the employee and the employer does not come to an end." 19. We, therefore, hold that the respondent could not have refused to accept the withdrawal letter of the appellant as it was sent before the jural relationship of employee and employer came to an end. Consequently, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside, which we hereby do. The appellant shall be entitled to rejoin his duty and he shall be paid all his salaries and other benefits during the period he was out from the service. The learned counsel for the respondent has stated that by this time the appellant might have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, if that be so, he shall be paid full salary and allowances for the entire period he was out of service till the date of his retirement and thereafter, he shall be entitled to get all retiral benefits counting the above period as if he was in service. 17. Thus, in the present case also, it is clear from all documents that the respondents did not consider the application of the petitioner for Voluntary Retirement and as per Annexure D/1, on 24.08.2013, department directed the petitioner to fill form 28. So, it is clear that the petitioner did not fill form 28 as also did not deposit 3 months’ salary as per rules till 24.08.2013 and petitioner filed Annexure P/7 on 21.10.2013 and 24.12.2013 for withdrawal of his VRS application. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner filed application before acceptance of application for his voluntary retirement. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussions, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is held that the respondents could not have refused to accept the withdrawal application of the petitioner as it was sent before the jurial relationship of the employee and the employer came to an end. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussions, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is held that the respondents could not have refused to accept the withdrawal application of the petitioner as it was sent before the jurial relationship of the employee and the employer came to an end. Therefore, the impugned order dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure P/1) is liable to be and is set aside. 19. During the pendency of the instant petition, petitioner died. Subsequently, name of the legal heirs of the deceased (petitioner) was taken on record. It is ordered that the salary of the petitioner be calculated from the entire period of his service till date of his retirement or death and the same be paid. The family members of the deceased (petitioner) shall be entitled to get all retiral benefits/family pension as per rules. 20. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant petition is allowed accordingly.