ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondent-authorities in not granting the pensionary benefits to the petitioner and also to declare the said action to be arbitrary and in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 2. Heard Mr. S. Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. M. Suman, learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Mr. A. Raghuram, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State of A.P. appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 4. 3. The petitioner herein was appointed as a Women Welfare Organizer in the Women and Child Welfare Department way back on 24.09.1979. In due course of time, she was promoted to the post of Supervisor in the year 1985, and later she was also promoted as a Child Development Project Officer / Asst. Project Officer in the year 2001. Meanwhile, the health condition of the petitioner got deteriorated on account of some ailment and because of her health condition she had to avail medical leave at regular intervals. Since it became difficult for her to discharge her duties, on 05.05.2008 she moved an application before the controlling authority seeking permission to retire from service voluntarily w.e.f. 31.08.2008. Since she had applied for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.08.2008, she did not report for duty thereafter awaiting decision on her application for voluntary retirement. 4. Undoubtedly, when the petitioner had moved the application for voluntary retirement, she was posted at Kurnool District of unified State of A.P. The said District still falls within the territories of the present State of A.P. The authority concerned did not take any steps for settlement of her dues in terms of the voluntary retirement that she had sought for. The petitioner had been repeatedly corresponding with the respondent-authorities, but none of the correspondences gave any positive result. 5. Meanwhile, on papers, upon bifurcation of the two States in accordance with the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 the petitioner was reflected to be allocated to the State of Telangana. The petitioner had been repeatedly corresponding with the respondent-authorities, but none of the correspondences gave any positive result. 5. Meanwhile, on papers, upon bifurcation of the two States in accordance with the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 the petitioner was reflected to be allocated to the State of Telangana. Since on papers, she stood allocated to the State of Telangana, the authorities in the State of A.P. took a stand that as she is no longer an employee of the State of A.P., no action and no relief can be granted or undertaken by the State of A.P. so far as the claim of the petitioner for pension and pensionary benefits. 6. It is this action on the part of the respondent-authorities which has compelled the petitioner to approach this Court invoking writ jurisdiction and seeking for a direction to the respondent-authorities for granting the pension and pensionary benefits upon the petitioner having availed the voluntary retirement. 7. Some of the admitted factual matrix of the present case, which has not been disputed, denied or rebutted by the learned counsel appearing for either of the State Government are as under: a) The appointment of the petitioner as a Woman Welfare Organizer on 24.09.1979; b) The petitioner was promoted as Supervisor in the year 1985 and further promoted to the post of Child Development Project Officer/ Asst. Project Officer on 13.07.2001; c) The petitioner on health grounds moved an application for voluntary retirement on 05.05.2008 and prayed to relieve her from service w.e.f. 31.08.2008; d) When the petitioner had submitted her voluntary retirement application, she was posted at Kurnool District which is an area still falling within the territories of the residuary State of A.P.; e) Lastly, the petitioner had tendered her application seeking voluntary retirement long before bifurcation of the two States under the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014. 8. In the light of the aforesaid admitted factual matrix of the case, what is to be now considered is the effect of the application for voluntary retirement tendered by the petitioner? 9. The application for voluntary retirement is one which was tendered by the petitioner under the then prevailing A.P. State Revised PENSION RULES , 1980 (for convenience, hereinafter referred to as ‘ PENSION RULES ’) and the Rule which applies for voluntary retirement as per the said PENSION RULES is Rule 43. 9. The application for voluntary retirement is one which was tendered by the petitioner under the then prevailing A.P. State Revised PENSION RULES , 1980 (for convenience, hereinafter referred to as ‘ PENSION RULES ’) and the Rule which applies for voluntary retirement as per the said PENSION RULES is Rule 43. The relevant portion of Rule 43 for ready reference is being reproduced hereunder: “ 43. Retirement on completion of 20 years of qualifying service: - (1) A Government servant shall have the option to retire from service voluntarily after he has put in not less than twenty years of qualifying service: Provided that he gives a notice in writing of his intention to retire voluntarily of at least three months to the authority which has power to make a substantive appointment to the post from which he retires: Provided further that a notice of the less than three months may also be accepted by the competent authority. xxx xxx xxx (2) A Government servant retiring under sub-rule (1) shall be entitled to a retiring pension : Provided that such retiring pension shall be subject to the provisions of the Rules 8 and 9. (3) Where a Government servant opts to retire under sub-rule (1) while on leave not due, the retirement in such cases shall take effect from the date when the leave not due commenced and the employee shall refund the leave salary paid in respect of such leave not due availed of by the employee. (4) A Government servant opting for retirement under sub-rule (1), shall not retire unless the notice given by him as per proviso to sub-rule (1) is accepted by the competent authority: Provided that the competent authority shall issue an order before the expiry of the notice period accepting or rejecting the notice.” 10. In the instant case, the relevant provision which would apply is Sub-Rule (4) and the proviso to the said Sub-Rule. A plain reading of Sub-Rule (4) would give an indication that upon an application being made, the competent authority has to accept the same, and unless it is accepted, the employee cannot be considered to have retired. However, the law makers have also added a proviso clause to the said provision, which mandates the competent authority to take a decision on the said application filed by the employee either accepting or rejecting the same. However, the law makers have also added a proviso clause to the said provision, which mandates the competent authority to take a decision on the said application filed by the employee either accepting or rejecting the same. This proviso to Sub-Rule makes it mandatory for the competent authority to take a decision on the application for voluntary retirement. 11. Now the second question that comes up for consideration is, in the event if the competent authority does not take a decision and the notice period also expires, whether the employee can still be compelled to discharge the duties? In other words, whether the employee would still be on the rolls of the employer or whether the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily retired from service in accordance with the application which she had made? 12. In the opinion of this Court, once when the rule makers have added a mandatory provision by way of a proviso, there can be no other inference drawn other than the fact that, in the event, if the competent authority having not taken a decision on the application for voluntary retirement either accepting or rejecting it, it will amount to deemed acceptance and the employee will be deemed to have retired from service voluntarily with effect from the notified date in the application. 13. In terms of the admitted factual matrix as is narrated in the preceding paragraphs, the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement on 05.05.2008 with a three months’ notice period of her standing to retire from service voluntarily w.e.f. 31.08.2008. Thereafter, she has not reported for duty. During this period, she was posted in Kurnool District which now falls within the territories of the State of A.P. The competent authority had not taken a decision on her application either accepting or rejecting it and, therefore, as a consequence of the inaction on the part of the competent authority to take a decision on the application for voluntary retirement submitted by the petitioner on 05.05.2008, for all practical purposes as per the proviso clause to Sub- Rule (4) of Rule 43 of the PENSION RULES it has to be considered that she is deemed to have retired from service w.e.f. 31.08.2008. 14. The Counter-Affidavit filed by the residuary State of A.P. as also by the State of Telangana would show conflicting and contradictory stand being taken by both. 14. The Counter-Affidavit filed by the residuary State of A.P. as also by the State of Telangana would show conflicting and contradictory stand being taken by both. The State of A.P. has taken a stand that since there was no acceptance of the application for voluntary retirement, the petitioner would continue to remain on the rolls of the Telangana and she also remained unauthorizedly absent from duty and in due course of time after the two States were bifurcated, the petitioner was allocated to the State of Telangana. Since the petitioner was allocated to the State of Telangana she would no longer be in the rolls of the State of A.P. and any further liability that would arise has to be made by the State of Telangana alone. 15. Likewise, the State of Telangana also took a similar stand contending that though the petitioner having been allocated to the State of Telangana, she has not reported for duty or joined the duty in the State of Telangana and unless she assumes the duty and takes charge, she cannot be accepted to be an employee of the State of Telangana. According to the State of Telangana, the petitioner was working in Kurnool District in the State of A.P., and unless she upon allocation joins in the State of Telangana, cannot be considered to be an employee of the State of Telangana. Nonetheless, for the reason there was an unauthorized absence, the State of Telangana did initiate disciplinary proceedings on the charge of inordinate unauthorized absence. However, subsequently on the ground that she has not joined in the State of Telangana, the entire disciplinary proceedings were dropped. Thus, the State of Telangana also refused or accepted the liability. 16. In the given factual scenario, what needs to be considered is, as to which State would have the liability for payment of pension in the event if the writ petition is to be allowed? 17. In the given factual matrix narrated in the preceding paragraphs, the relevant period is 05.05.2008 to 31.08.2008. During this period, the petitioner was working at Kurnool District. The said place now falls under the State of A.P. The petitioner had tendered her voluntary resignation on 05.05.2008, but no decision was taken on the said application which was to become effective w.e.f. 31.08.2008 i.e. three months’ notice period that was granted. During this period, the petitioner was working at Kurnool District. The said place now falls under the State of A.P. The petitioner had tendered her voluntary resignation on 05.05.2008, but no decision was taken on the said application which was to become effective w.e.f. 31.08.2008 i.e. three months’ notice period that was granted. In the said admitted facts, in the event if the application for voluntary retirement is not considered, it would deemed to have been accepted. Then there can be no doubt whatsoever of the law and liability for grant of pension and pensionary benefits falling upon the State of A.P. It is only if this Bench reaches to the conclusion that non-acceptance of the voluntary retirement would not have a deeming fiction and the concerned employee would remain on the rolls of the employer, and thereafter being allocated to the State of Telangana, would shift the liability from the State of A.P. to the State of Telangana. 18. Now so far as the legal position of non-acceptance of the application for voluntary retirement is concerned, we have already reproduced the statutory provision i.e. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 43 of the PENSION RULES earlier in this order which mandatorily requires the competent authority to take a decision on the application, both for accepting or rejecting the same. The very fact that there is a mandate in the Rule for taking a decision, either ways it has to be inferred and presumed that in the event of the competent authority not taking a decision, it would amount to deemed acceptance of the application. 19. One of the earlier decisions on this subject is the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Chandra Sangma vs. State of Assam and Others , (1977) 4 Supreme Court Cases 441 wherein in paragraph No.8 it has been held as under: “ 8. As is well known government servants hold office during the pleasure of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, under Article 310 of the Constitution. However, the pleasure doctrine under Article 310 is limited by Article 311(2). It is clear that the services of a permanent Government servant cannot be terminated except in accordance with the rules made under Article 309 subject to Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the Fundamental Rights. However, the pleasure doctrine under Article 310 is limited by Article 311(2). It is clear that the services of a permanent Government servant cannot be terminated except in accordance with the rules made under Article 309 subject to Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the Fundamental Rights. It is also well-settled that even a temporary government servant or a probationer cannot be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except in accordance with Article 311(2). The above doctrine of pleasure is invoked by the Government in the public interest after a government servant attains the age of 50 years or has completed 25 years of service. This is constitutionally permissible as compulsory termination of service under Fundamental Rule 56(b) does not amount to removal or dismissal by way of punishment. While the Government reserves its right to compulsorily retire a government servant, even against his wish, there is a corresponding right of the government servant under Fundamental Rule 56(c) to voluntarily retire from service by giving the Government three months' notice in writing. There is no question of acceptance of the request for voluntary retirement by the Government when the government servant exercises his right under Fundamental Right 56(c).” 20. The said analogy was subsequently also reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. S.K. Singhal ,(1999) 4 Supreme Court Cases 293 wherein in paragraph Nos.9 and 13, it has been held as under: “ 9. The employment of government servants is governed by rules. These rules provide a particular age as the age of superannuation. Nonetheless, the rules confer a right on the Government to compulsorily retire an employee before the age of superannuation provided the employee has reached a particular age or has completed a particular number of years of qualifying service in case it is found that his service has not been found to be satisfactory. The rules also provide that an employee who has completed the said number of years in his age or who has completed the prescribed number of years of qualifying service could give notice of, say, three months that he would voluntarily retire on the expiry of the said period of three months. Some rules are couched in language which results in an automatic retirement of the employee upon the expiry of the period specified in the employee's notice. Some rules are couched in language which results in an automatic retirement of the employee upon the expiry of the period specified in the employee's notice. On the other hand, certain rules in some other departments are couched in language which makes it clear that even upon expiry of the period specified in the notice, the retirement is not automatic and an express order granting permission is required and has to be communicated. The relationship of master and servant in the latter type of rules continues after the period specified in the notice till such acceptance is communicated; refusal of permission could also be communicated after 3 months and the employee continues to be in service. Cases like Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam, (1977) 4 SCC 441 : 1978 SCC (L&S) 7, B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat , (1978) 2 SCC 202 : 1978 SCC (L&S) 208 and Union of India v. Sayed Muzaffar Mir, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 76 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 256 belong to the former category where it is held that upon the expiry of the period, the voluntary retirement takes effect automatically as no order of refusal is passed within the notice period. On the other hand H.P. Horticultural Produce Marketing & Processing Corpn. Ltd. v. Suman Behari Sharma, (1996) 4 SCC 584 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1056 belongs to the second category where the bye-laws were interpreted as not giving an option “to retire” but only provided a limited right to “seek” retirement thereby implying the need for a consent of the employer even if the period of the notice has elapsed. We shall refer to these two categories in some detail. …… …… … 13. Thus, from the aforesaid three decisions it is clear that if the right to voluntarily retire is conferred in absolute terms as in Dinesh Chandra Sangma case by the relevant rules and there is no provision in the rules to withhold permission in certain contingencies the voluntary retirement comes into effect automatically on the expiry of the period specified in the notice…” 21. The aforesaid two judgments in very categorical terms confers a right upon an employee to decide whether the employee wishes to voluntarily retire from service and if the employee opts to retire voluntarily, unless there is a specific embargo under certain conditions when it could be refused, there is no reason why the employee cannot opt for voluntary retirement. The aforesaid principles laid down is also found to have been followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court again in the case of Union of India & Others vs. Sayed Muzaffar Mir, 1995 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 76 wherein in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 it was held as under: “ 4. There are two answers to this submission. The first is that both the provisions relied upon by the learned counsel would require, according to us, passing of appropriate order, when the government servant is under suspension (as was the respondent), either of withholding permission to retire or retaining of the incumbent in service. It is an admitted fact that no such order had been passed in the present case. So, despite the right given to the appropriate/competent authority in this regard, the same is of no avail in the present case as the right had not come to be exercised. We do not know the reason(s) thereof. May be, for some reason the authority concerned thought that it would be better to see off the respondent by allowing him to retire. 5. The second aspect of the matter is that it has been held by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam, which has dealt with a parimateria provision finding place in Rule 56(c) of the Fundamental Rules, that where the government servant seeks premature retirement the same does not require any acceptance and comes into effect on the completion of the notice period. This decision was followed by another three- Judge Bench in B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat .” In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon its own decision in the case of B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat , (1978) 2 Supreme Court Cases 202. 22. This decision was followed by another three- Judge Bench in B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat .” In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon its own decision in the case of B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat , (1978) 2 Supreme Court Cases 202. 22. From the aforesaid judicial precedents in the past, what is culled out is that upon a Government servant giving notice of voluntary retirement, the competent authority is expected to take a decision by either allowing or rejecting the application within the notice period of three months. In the event of the competent authority not taking a decision, there can be no other inference or presumption that could be drawn of the voluntary retirement automatically coming into force from the period mentioned in the application submitted by the employee. The right to apply for voluntary retirement conferred under the PENSION RULES upon an employee opting for the same with clear three months’ notice and if the employer / competent authority does not reject the application within three months, it is deemed acceptance. This in other words means that the competent authority has to pass a specific order refusing permission from voluntary retirement, that too before expiry of the notice period; else the retirement becomes effective from the date of expiry of the period mentioned in the notice given by the employee. As a consequence, the employee’s relationship with the employer also automatically comes to an end on the notice period. 23. In the aforesaid judicial precedents and the principles laid down therein, and considering the same in the teeth of the provisions of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 43 of the PENSION RULES , this Bench has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that non-acceptance of the voluntary retirement submitted by the petitioner w.e.f. 05.05.2008 would result in deemed acceptance w.e.f. 31.08.2008. The instant writ petition therefore deserves to be allowed for the said reason. 24. As a consequence, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be deemed to have voluntarily retired w.e.f. 31.08.2008 and is entitled for all consequential pension and pensionary benefits which she would have been otherwise entitled as on 31.08.2008. The instant writ petition therefore deserves to be allowed for the said reason. 24. As a consequence, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be deemed to have voluntarily retired w.e.f. 31.08.2008 and is entitled for all consequential pension and pensionary benefits which she would have been otherwise entitled as on 31.08.2008. However, in the event of the petitioner going on leave after exhausting all the leaves that were there to her credit, the pensionary benefits and the effective date of voluntary retirement would be in accordance with the provisions of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 43 of the PENSION RULES , which prescribes the situation where the employee retires while on leave. It is further ordered that the petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits including arrears of pension from the date of voluntary retirement becoming effective. The liability, as has been discussed earlier falls only upon the State of A.P., as on this date the new State had not been carved out and that the petitioner was working in the territories which even as on this date is within the State of A.P. i.e. Kurnool District. Let the entire arrears of pension be calculated and processed within an outer limit of four (04) months and further pension also be regularly paid. 25. We are conscious of the fact that the petitioner has been denied the benefits of retirement unnecessarily for a long time because of the developments that took place in between. We are not imposing interest on the arrears of pension. Nonetheless, if the State of A.P. fails to clear the arrears of pension and other benefits within a period of four (04) months as directed, the entire pensionary benefits would carry interest at the rate of 7%. 26. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed in the afore given terms. 27. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.