1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 248 of 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1106 of 2003 Alka N. Somani .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra & Others ...Respondents Mr.A.M.Joshi for Applicant. Mr. C.R.Sonawane, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED:- 8th AUGUST, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. The relief claimed in this application by the Original Petitioner No.3 is to permit her to submit the proposal for voluntary retirement to the department. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner no.3 has not been appointed in terms of the interim order passed in the pending writ petition. If the petitioner no.3 has not been appointed, the question of the petitioner submitting proposal for voluntary retirement does not arise. The relief claimed in this application is misconceived. 2 2. Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the observation made in our Order dated 10th March, 2011. However, the said Order dated 10th March, 2011 does not refer to the fact that the petitioner no.3 has not been appointed in terms of the interim order as such. The submission made before the Court on the earlier occasion was that the petitioner no.3 has already reached the age of super- annuation and instead of absorbing her in some other school would opt for premature retirement. Suffice it to note that there is no concept of notional voluntary retirement. The quintessence of voluntary retirement is that the person must be already employed. Accordingly, we would dispose of this application with liberty to the applicant to pursue any other relief in the context of the interim order passed by this court. 3. Besides, we clarify that the petitioner no.3 would be entitled to ask for such further relief as may be advised in the pending writ petition which will be considered on its own merits. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)