1 D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.366/2008 State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Badam Bai Date of Judgment :: April 10, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Ankur Rastogi, Additional Government Counsel for the appellants. *** Heard Mr. Ankur Rastogi, Additional Government Counsel for the appellants. This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.2.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no.1865/2004 whereby and whereunder the writ application was disposed of with certain observations. The writ petitioner, sweeper employed under the Municipal Council, Kota had applied virtually for voluntary retirement since she had completed fifteen years of services. However, in the proforma application the word 'voluntary retirement' was struck off instead of the word 'resignation'. The application so filed by the writ petitioner was considered by the authorities and accepted her resignation and thus, denied the payment of retiral dues which were required to be paid on accepting the voluntary retirement of the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge of this Court, however, seeing the implication of law and considering the fact that the writ petitioner was a rustic lady who could not distinguish between the words 'resignation' and 'voluntary retirement', held that the authorities could have given the 2 opportunity to exercise the option again, and thus directed the authorities to provide opportunity to the writ petitioner to fill up the proforma of voluntary retirement and in case it is so done within a month from that day, she be given the post retiral benefits with effect from 13.3.1984. It is not disputed that the proforma contained both words 'resignation' and 'voluntary retirement'. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioner was a rustic lady and was not knowing the implications of the words 'resignation' and 'voluntary retirement', but on reading of the proforma filled up by the writ petitioner, it would appear that her object was for voluntary retirement as she had completed fifteen years of services. The authorities, therefore, were duty bound to consider her application even after questioning her as to the purpose of the application. In the background of the case, therefore, the learned Single Judge of this Court was perfectly justified in exercising his discretion in directing the authorities to provide one more opportunity to the writ petitioner to fill up the form afresh and consider the same in accordance with law. The discretion so exercised by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in our view, therefore, need not be interfered with. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-