THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL No. 127 of 2001 JUDGMENT: (Per T. Meena Kumari, J) The present Writ Appeal has been ﬁled challenging the Order of dismissal dated 20.7.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 19210 of 1999. The Appellant herein is the petitioner in the Writ Petition seeks voluntary retirement scheme with eﬀect from 3.8.1999, which was subsequently changed to 31.8.1999. The employer having accepted the same from 23.7.1999 have relieved the Appellant from the post with effect from 31.8.1999. The Appellant for the reasons best known to him has sought the order to be kept in abeyance by his representation dated 30.8.1999, but the University has accepted the voluntary retirement scheme on 23.7.1999. A status quo seems to have been issued on 30.8.1999 by the incumbent informing all the respondents of withdrawal of his voluntary retirement scheme application. But, however, the University by proceedings dated 23.7.1999 has permitted the Appellant herein to retire voluntarily from service by the afternoon of 31.8.1999, which was the subject matter of the Writ Petition. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. The contention is sought to be raised before the learned Single Judge is that an employee has a liberty to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement scheme before its acceptance and hence the respondents erred in retiring the Appellant with eﬀect from 31.8.1999. But, however, the learned Single Judge having gone into the original records have come to the conclusion that the fax message which was sent on 30.8.1999 was received by the University on 31.8.1999, but the University has accepted the voluntary retirement scheme application on 23.7.1999 itself. On that ground, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred by the employee. Before this Court also, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has raised a plea that the incumbent has every right to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement scheme before its acceptance or before his retirement is eﬀected. But, however, the material papers placed before this Court show that at the ﬁrst instance, the Appellant has chosen to inform the respondents to pass the Orders of acceptance of voluntary retirement scheme with eﬀect from 31.8.1999 and the same has been accepted by the University on 23.7.1999 permitting the Appellant to retire from service with eﬀect from 31.8.1999. But, on 30.8.1999, the Appellant has chosen to request the respondent authorities by way of fax informing the respondent authorities to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement scheme. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant has not placed any regulation or provision under which employee is empowered to keep the orders in abeyance and more so, the authorities have every power to allow the employee to withdraw his resignation. Once the application for resignation for voluntary retirement scheme has been accepted by the employer with effect from 31.8.1996, the last date of month, the period which the employer has allowed to continue the petitioner in service cannot be taken advantage on the ground that he has sent a fax message on 30.8.1999 to the University to keep the order of voluntary retirement scheme in abeyance. In the absence of any regulation or provisions to keep the representation of the appellant for voluntary retirement scheme in abeyance, we are of the opinion that the writ petition itself is misconceived and the writ appeal should also be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. ________________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 1.7.2008 CHV