W.A.No.635/2011 23.09.2011 Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant. The writ petitioner was a Constable and who has taken voluntary retirement. After 1 ½ month after his retirement he applied for withdrawal of his request for voluntary retirement. Although at that stage such request was not maintainable, but the learned Single Judge found in the impugned order that the Inspector General of Police has allowed the request of the writ petitioner, and had permitted his rejoining on certain conditions, one of which was re- deposit of the withdrawal made by the petitioner. It was found that in paragraph 8 of their return, the respondent had agreed that the liability of the re-deposit may be fixed and the recovery may be made by deduction from salary with the writ petitioner undertaking not to claim the amount and to repay the amount in instalments. The petitioner was a mere Constable and obviously payment of the large amount of Rs.1,67,057/- in one go would have been extremely difficult for him. In fact requiring such large deposit in one go, may have lead to obvious undesirable activity by the petitioner after re-joining police service. Accordingly, the requisite directions have been issued in the impugned order. This appeal has been filed by the State on the alleged ground that the concession made in paragraph 8 of the return was not authorised. If only oral concession had been made by respondent, perhaps this ground could have been entertained. But where a concession is made in the counter affidavit of the respondents and the case is decided on that basis, and the concession does not appear to be unreasonable, this kind of argument cannot be accepted to entertain the appeal. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Sushil Harkauli) (K.K.Trivedi) Acting Chief Justice Judge A.Praj.