JUDGMENT : ANAND SHARMA, J. 1. Petitioner, in the present writ petition, has prayed for issuance of direction against the respondent to grant extraordinary leave to the petitioner and to revoke orders of voluntary retirement issued on 10.01.2008 and 13.02.2012 and to take back the petitioner in department after completion of his deputation period. The petitioner has further prayed that his deputation period may be treated as the period spent on duty by availing extraordinary leave and to include the same for pensionery benefits. 2. The petitioner has come out with a case that he was initially appointed as Computer Operator in the Department of Information Technology and Communication on 01.12.1989. Thereafter, he participated in the examination conducted for the post of Programmer in the year 1995 which was conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission. After selection, the petitioner was recruited on the post of Programmer in the year 1996. 3. In the year 2007, Asian Development Bank (hereinafter to be referred as ‘ADB’) invited applications from all eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Management Information System Expert (hereinafter to be referred as ‘MIS Expert’) for a short term. The petitioner, who was eligible for the post advertised by the ADB, extended his request for grant of extraordinary leave, yet no heed was paid by the respondent. Under these circumstances, the petitioner submitted application dated 26.11.2007 requesting therein that in case, it was not possible to grant extraordinary leave (hereinafter to be referred as ‘EOL’), then he would opt for voluntary retirement from service. The petitioner states that after such application, order dated 31.12.2007 was issued by the respondent, whereby, the petitioner was granted voluntary retirement with immediate effect. However, only after ten days, the department withdrew the aforesaid order of voluntary retirement dated 31.12.2007, by way of issuing separate order dated 10.01.2008 and EOL for a period of six months from 12.01.2008 was sanctioned to the petitioner for taking up assignment as MIS Expert at ADB. Vide aforesaid order dated 10.01.2008, no objection certificate was also issued by the respondent. Pursuant to aforesaid order dated 10.01.2008, the petitioner availed EOL and joined as MIS Expert at ADB. As EOL was granted for limited period, therefore, the petitioner requested for extending EOL, however, the same was declined by the respondent. Vide aforesaid order dated 10.01.2008, no objection certificate was also issued by the respondent. Pursuant to aforesaid order dated 10.01.2008, the petitioner availed EOL and joined as MIS Expert at ADB. As EOL was granted for limited period, therefore, the petitioner requested for extending EOL, however, the same was declined by the respondent. The petitioner states that thereafter, vide order dated 13.02.2012, the earlier order dated 10.01.2008, which was already executed by the petitioner, was cancelled from the date of its issuance and instead thereof, earlier order dated 31.12.2007, which was already withdrawn by the respondent-department vide order dated 10.01.2008, was made effective and the petitioner was granted voluntary retirement with effect from 31.12.2007 with further direction that the pensionery benefits shall be admissible to the petitioner treating his date of retirement as 31.12.2007. 4. Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier an order dated 08.01.1992 was issued by the State Government for regulating the terms of deputation etc. for government officials, who were permitted to take up short term foreign assignment/consultancy with United Nations and other international agencies like World Bank, Asian Bank, ESCAP etc. While indicating the clauses of order dated 08.01.1992, learned Senior Advocate submits that on account of taking up of assignment of MIS Expert with ADB, the petitioner was entitled for EOL and as per the provisions of the aforesaid order, he was also entitled for continuing with deputation for a period of two years at a time. Therefore, not extending extraordinary leave beyond six months was quite arbitrary on the part of the respondents. Learned Senior Advocate submits that order dated 08.01.1992 was issued by the Government of Rajasthan in special circumstances and in larger interest where the Government of Rajasthan has sponsored Government servants for short term assignment with United Nations and other international agencies. It was also submitted that the petitioner was subjected to hostile discrimination in the manner that although extension of EOL was denied to the petitioner, yet in the similar circumstances, benefit of extending EOL was granted to other officers, namely, K.K. Gediok, an officer of Rajasthan Accounts Services vide order dated 04.08.2008; Shri Sunil Chhabra, Analyst-cum-Programmer vide order dated 10.01.2008 and further extended EOL vide order dated 24.03.2009 as well as Shri Rameshwar Lal Solanki, Analyst-cum-Programmer and Anil Kumar Singh serving in Raj. Comp vide orders dated 29.07.2008 and 03.09.2007 respectively. 5. Comp vide orders dated 29.07.2008 and 03.09.2007 respectively. 5. In addition to above, it has also been submitted that the orders passed by the respondent-department are self contradictory and prejudicing the legitimate rights of the petitioner. There was no occasion for withdrawing order dated 10.01.2008 after lapse of more than four years vide impugned order dated 13.02.2012, more so, when order dated 10.01.2008 was already executed by the petitioner. Learned Senior Advocate prayed for quashing order dated 13.02.2012 and for grant of consequential benefits by extending EOL to the petitioner. 6. Learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the writ petition and stated that earlier on request made by the petitioner vide application dated 27.11.2007, order of voluntary retirement dated 31.12.2007 was issued by the respondents. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner made another application dated 03.01.2008 for withdrawing order of voluntary retirement and to reconsider the case for grant of EOL. Therefore, on the request of the petitioner, order dated 31.12.2007 was withdrawn and fresh order dated 10.01.2008 was passed specifying therein that extraordinary leave of only six months shall be granted to the petitioner from 12.01.2008, which shall not be further extended. The petitioner consciously accepted aforesaid order dated 10.01.2008 with the condition that the extraordinary leave shall not be extended further. However, even on expiry of period reflected in order dated 10.01.2008, the petitioner submitted baseless applications for further extension of EOL which were not entertained. It was also pointed out that the petitioner again submitted application dated 18.08.2008 for granting him voluntary retirement so that he could complete his assignment with ADB. Accordingly, order dated 08.09.2008 was passed clarifying therein that the period of EOL shall not be counted towards qualifying service for pensionery benefits. It was submitted that further order dated 13.02.2012 was issued by the respondent for withdrawing earlier orders dated 10.01.2008, 08.09.2008 and to revive earlier order of voluntary retirement dated 31.12.2007. It has also been submitted that after issuance of impugned order dated 13.02.2012, even pension has been sanctioned to the petitioner by issuing Pension Payment Order (PPO) dated 29.02.2012. It was submitted that request for extending EOL made by the petitioner was contrary to the provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the RSR’) as well as against specific terms mentioned in order dated 10.01.2008. It was submitted that request for extending EOL made by the petitioner was contrary to the provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the RSR’) as well as against specific terms mentioned in order dated 10.01.2008. It was also submitted that as per Rule 59 of the RSR, the petitioner does not possess vested right to claim sanction or extension of leave on any account. Thus, under these circumstances, where admittedly, requests were made by the petitioner himself, the respondents have rightly issued the impugned order. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that immediately after completion of six months period as mentioned in order dated 10.01.2008, when the petitioner did not join back in the department, letters/notices were issued to him calling upon him to join duties failing which action under Rule 86 of the RSR would be taken against the petitioner treating him to be willfully absent. However, the petitioner did not act upon pursuant to such letters/notices. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that no case of discrimination is made out for the reason that other persons in respect of whom the petitioner is claiming parity never submitted any application seeking voluntary retirement unlike the petitioner. 7. In rejoinder, it has been submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that although PPO was issued, yet the pension and post retiral benefits have not been released to the petitioner pursuant to impugned order. 8. I have considered submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also examined the record. 9. It is not in dispute that order dated 08.01.1992 was issued by the Department of Personnel providing for grant of EOL as well as permission to take up short term foreign assignments. When the vacancies were advertised in ADB, pursuant to the provisions made in the aforesaid order dated 08.01.1992, the petitioner also applied for granting him sanction as well as EOL to take up the short term assignment which was even otherwise permissible under the provisions of RSR. 10. It is also not in dispute that initially, when EOL was not granted to the petitioner, he submitted application dated 26.11.2007 either to grant EOL or to accept his request for voluntary retirement. 10. It is also not in dispute that initially, when EOL was not granted to the petitioner, he submitted application dated 26.11.2007 either to grant EOL or to accept his request for voluntary retirement. Such request was acceded to by accepting the alternative request made by the petitioner and voluntary retirement was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 31.12.2007, which order was later, on the request of the petitioner, withdrawn vide order dated 10.01.2008. EOL was granted to the petitioner with necessary permission and no objection in taking up short term assignment with ADB. As per order dated 08.01.1992, a request could have been made for sanction of EOL for a period of two years. However, in the instant case, request for extending EOL was not accepted by the respondents on the pretext that earlier order for grant of EOL was explicit in its terms and possibility of extension of EOL had already been declined while issuing order dated 10.01.2008 itself. It appears that even then the petitioner did not join back in the department and continued with ADB to complete his assignment and in the meanwhile, he also crossed the age of superannuation. 11. However, there appears to be no justified reason whatsoever for issuing fresh order dated 13.02.2012 or withdrawing earlier order dated 10.01.2008 after expiry of period of more than four years and to revive the already withdrawn order dated 13.12.2007 for granting voluntary retirement to the petitioner. Mere submission by the respondent that since the petitioner did not comply with the terms and conditions of order dated 10.01.2008 in its letter and spirit, cannot be a good ground to withdraw the same, more particularly, when the respondent- Government is vested with enough power to conduct disciplinary action against the employee, who has not complied with its orders and not followed the directions given in order dated 10.01.2008. The manner in which order dated 13.02.2012 has been issued puts a question over the functioning of the respondent-Government as well as on bona fides of the impugned order. Confining retiral benefits only up to 31.12.2007 under the circumstances, when the subsequent order dated 10.01.2008 not only withdrew earlier order of voluntary retirement dated 31.12.2007 yet also granted sanction and permission to take up assignment with ADB which the petitioner has admittedly carried out. Confining retiral benefits only up to 31.12.2007 under the circumstances, when the subsequent order dated 10.01.2008 not only withdrew earlier order of voluntary retirement dated 31.12.2007 yet also granted sanction and permission to take up assignment with ADB which the petitioner has admittedly carried out. Hence at a later stage, he cannot be put to a disadvantageous position and the benefits of period rendered by him on deputation pursuant to order dated 10.01.2008 cannot be taken away in such an arbitrary manner. 12. Nothing has been placed on record by the respondents to show that what has prevented them from conducting disciplinary action against the petitioner as well as what was the reason to permit the respondent to withdraw order dated 10.01.2008 after a period of four years, ignoring the developments which took place in between. 13. In view of above, writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. Order dated 13.02.2012 passed by the respondents is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is accordingly held entitled for consequential benefits up to the date of his superannuation. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled for actual monetary benefits for the intervening period and shall be entitled only for notional benefits for fixation of pay as well as computation of pension and other retiral benefits. The respondents are directed to issue necessary orders and to make compliance of this order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 14. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.