ORDER : Pulla Karthik, J. The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “… to declare the action of the 2nd Respondent in passing the rejection orders vide memo. No. 15065/Ser.III(2)/2014, dated: 24-10- 2024, for accepting the voluntary retirement of the applicant w.e.f. 31-1- 2013 and without counting the EOL period (4 years 6 months) in to the applicant’s total service, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of specific guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.214, Finance and Planning (PWFR.I) Department, dated: 3-9-1996, and set aside the same, consequently direct the respondent to consider and accept the contribution and payments of leave salary by allowing the applicant’s voluntary retirement ….” 2) Heard Sri R.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel, representing Sri Ramalingeshwar Rao Kocharla Kota, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in the office of Superintending Engineer (R&B), Balkampet, Hyderabad, on 31- 01-1990 and subsequently worked in the office of respondent No.2 and completed 23 years of service as on 31.01.2013 in the same cadre. While the petitioner was working as Assistant Executive Engineer (R&B) Special Grade of Zone-VI, in the office of Engineer- in-Chief (R&B) Hyderabad, respondent No.1 has accorded permission to the petitioner to secure and take up employment abroad, subject to fulfilling the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.214, Finance and Planning (FW.FR.I) Department, dated: 3-9-1996, vide his G.O.Rt.No.406, TR&B (S.III) Department, dated: 24-5-2000. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has issued consequential orders in Proceedings No.9365/Ser.V(3)/99, dated: 15-6-2000 and granted Extra-Ordinary Leave to the applicant without pay and allowances for a total period of 4 years and 11 months starting from 17-6-2000 FN to 16-5-2005 AN. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner secured employment abroad and reported back to duty even before completion of leave period vide reposting orders dated 18.10.2002 issued by respondent No.2. Accordingly, the petitioner has joined at R&B Section, Bibingar, in the existing vacancy. The petitioner has availed the leave only for 2 years and 4 months out of the sanctioned leave of 4 years and 11 months. Accordingly, the petitioner has joined at R&B Section, Bibingar, in the existing vacancy. The petitioner has availed the leave only for 2 years and 4 months out of the sanctioned leave of 4 years and 11 months. 3.1) Learned counsel further submit that based on the representations of the petitioner, again respondent No.2 has sanctioned Extra-Ordinary leave for a further period of two years 6 months and 29 days to the petitioner w.e.f.03-10-2008 FN to 02- 05-2011 AN vide proceedings No.26086/Services V(1)/2008, dated 11-09-2008. Even before completion of said sanctioned period, the petitioner has joined the duty vide Posting Orders dated 03.12.2010 in PPP Cell O/o. the Engineer-in-Chief (R&B) Hyderabad, in the existing vacancy. Thereafter, on 01.11.2011 petitioner submitted leave letter to respondent No.2 for sanction of Earned Leave from 03-01-2011 to 02-04-2011 and EL was also granted and the leave was extended upto 01-07-2011 at the request of the petitioner vide representation dated 31.03.2011. Finally, the petitioner made another representation to the petitioner on 22.06.2013 to respondent No.2 requesting to extend the leave from 02.07.2011 to 30.01.2013 duly intimating his pending request for VRS made in his representation dated 01.11.2012 and also requested to make necessary salary payments at the earliest. However, respondent No.2 has issued Memo No.15065/Ser.V(1)/2011-1, dated 08-01-2014, rejecting the request of the petitioner for Voluntary Retirement w.e.f. 31.01.2013 on the ground that the petitioner is not having 20 years of qualifying service for Voluntary Retirement, as required under Rule 43 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (in short ‘Revised Pension Rules’). 3.2) Learned counsel further submits that in pursuance to the interim order dated 14.05.2014 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal granting interim suspension of the rejection order dated 01.08.2014 and directing respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders on the representations of the petitioner dated 05.03.2014 and 27.04.2014, the present impugned order dated 24.10.2014 has been passed by respondent No.2 once again rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not put in 20 years of exclusive service as required under Rule43 of the Revised Pension Rules. 3.3) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in similar circumstances, respondent No.2 has considered the Extra Ordinary Leave period of one K.Phanindra, AEE (R&B), and allowed him to retire voluntarily on 30.06.2007 by accepting the pension contribution paid by him and also sanctioned his retirement pension, however, the said benefit is not extended to the petitioner herein even though the petitioner is having sufficient requisite qualifying service and also willingness to pay the pension contribution towards his retirement pension. Learned counsel further submits that as per para 5 (2) of G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 03.09.1996, the period of absence during employment abroad shall be treated as extraordinary leave without allowances, but such absence will not be construed as a break in service. The said period shall not be counted for service benefits such as increment, pay, leave, etc., but, if contribution towards pension is paid by foreign employer or employee, such periods will count for pension. 3.4) Learned counsel further submits that the total period of extraordinary leave sanctioned to petitioner without pay and allowances is 4 years 11 months, out of which, the petitioner has availed 4 years 6 months period in different spells. As per G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 03.09.1996 and G.O.Ms.No.756, dated 07.08.2002, the benefit of availment of EOL shall be given to Government employees at a single stretch or in different spells, but for a period not exceeding five years in all during the entire service. Therefore, including the EOL period availed by the petitioner, under valid sanction orders, he is entitled for Voluntary Retirement with effect from 31.01.2013 AN and also entitled to get his retirement pension. Therefore, the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4) Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that as per the Service Rules of the petitioner, he has completed only 18 years of service excluding employment abroad leave i.e. 5 years of Extraordinary Leave. Therefore, as per Rule 43 (i) of Revised Pension Rules, Extraordinary Leave availed other than Study Leave will not qualify for counting 20 years of qualifying service, which is a pre-condition for voluntary retirement. Therefore, as per Rule 43 (i) of Revised Pension Rules, Extraordinary Leave availed other than Study Leave will not qualify for counting 20 years of qualifying service, which is a pre-condition for voluntary retirement. Further, as per the letter dated 08.01.2014 addressed by the Government, as per proviso (3) under Rule 43 of Revised Pension Rules, extraordinary leave availed on any ground other than for prosecuting higher studies within the State/outside the State/Country without receiving any payment except stipends during the period of such leave from any source, but including medical certificate shall not be reckoned as qualifying service. Therefore, the permission to retire from service to the petitioner voluntarily has been rejected in terms of Rule 43 r/w.Rule 21 of Revised Pension Rules vide Memo dated 08.01.2014. Learned Government Pleader further contends that sub-clause (2) of para 5 of G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 03.09.1996, is applicable only in case of superannuation retirements whereas Voluntary retirements are governed by Rule 43 r/w.21 of Revised Pension Rules, which mandates 20 years of qualifying service exclusively i.e. without extraordinary leave, etc. for opting VRS by an employee. Therefore, the respondents are justified in passing the impugned rejection orders as the petitioner has not put in 20 years of exclusive service as required under Rule 43 of Revised Pension Rules and thus the learned Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition. 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective parties and perused the material on record. 6) Here, it is relevant to state that the facts are not in dispute in the present case. 7) The main contention of the petitioner is that as per G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 03.09.1996, more specifically para 5 (2) thereof, the extraordinary leave without allowances can be counted for pension. The said provision reads as under: “The period of absence during employment abroad will be treated as extraordinary leave without allowances but such period of absence will not be construed as a break in service. It will not be counted for service benefits such as increment, pay, leave etc. The said provision reads as under: “The period of absence during employment abroad will be treated as extraordinary leave without allowances but such period of absence will not be construed as a break in service. It will not be counted for service benefits such as increment, pay, leave etc. However, if contribution towards pension is paid by the foreign employer or employee, such periods will count for pension.” 8) From the above, it is clear that the absence during the employment abroad will be treated as extraordinary leave without allowances and such period of absence will not be construed as a break in service, however, the said period will not be counted for service benefits such as increment, pay, leave, etc. and if contribution towards pension is paid by the foreign employer or employee, such period will count for pension. 9) During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed the readiness of the petitioner to pay contribution towards pension. 10) Further, according to the respondents, para 5 (2) of G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 03.09.1996, is applicable only in case of retirement on superannuation but not voluntarily. But, this Court is not in agreement with the said contention since there is no such averment/expression in G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 03.09.1996, to that effect that the same is applicable only to retirements on superannuation. Therefore, it has to be construed that it applies to both the categories of retirements. 11) Further, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondents have considered the case of one Phanindra and allowed to retire him on 03.06.2017 by accepting the pension contributions paid by him and sanctioned retirement pension to the said individual vide AG Letter dated 10.12.2008. But, the counter is silent in this regard. Therefore, on the ground of discrimination also the impugned rejection orders dated31.01.2013 and 24.10.2024 are liable to be set aside. 12) For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the fact that the petitioner is willing to pay contributions towards pension, this Court is of the view that as per clause 5 (2) of G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 03.09.1996, the rejection orders dated 31.01.2013 and24.10.2024 are liable to be set aside. 12) For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the fact that the petitioner is willing to pay contributions towards pension, this Court is of the view that as per clause 5 (2) of G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 03.09.1996, the rejection orders dated 31.01.2013 and24.10.2024 are liable to be set aside. 13) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned rejection orders dated 31.01.2013 and 24.10.2024 are set aside and the respondents are directed to consider and accept the pension contribution payments as per para 5 (2) of G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 03.09.1996 and allow the petitioner to retire voluntarily, as was done in case of one K.Phanindra. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.