IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1075 OF 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/02/2009 in WP NO : 21997 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Challapalli Venkata Siva Rama Krishna ... APPELLANT AND State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai – 400 023, rep., by its Chairman and four others ... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A. Venkataramana Counsel for the Respondents: Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 25-02-2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 21997 of 2008, the original petitioner has filed this appeal. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal, in a nutshell, are as under: The appellant – original petitioner was working in respondent No.1 – Bank as a Deputy Manager. He had submitted an application praying for voluntary retirement on 30-08-2007 with a request that he be permitted to retire voluntarily with effect from 31-08-2007. In pursuance of the said application, some correspondence was exchanged and ultimately, the appellant was permitted to retire voluntarily. Upon acceptance of the voluntary retirement, the appellant had also submitted an application on 15-11-2007 asking the authorities to pay his gratuity. The said letter is on record. On 27-11-2007, the appellant was also informed to submit his pension papers as his request for voluntary retirement had been accepted. There was some controversy with regard to the date on which he should be permitted to retire because initially, the respondent – Bank was not inclined to permit him to retire with effect from a retrospective date. However, the said request of the appellant was also accepted by the respondent – Bank. It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent - Bank that the amount of gratuity and provident fund had also been remitted to the appellant, which had also been received by him. It is pertinent to note that by letter dated 20-12-2007, the appellant asked the respondent – Bank that he wanted to withdraw his proposal with regard to retirement, but as the initial proposal for voluntary retirement had already been accepted, his request for withdrawal of the proposal was not accepted and in the circumstances, the aforestated writ petition was filed by him. After considering the aforestated facts, especially in view of the fact that the proposal for voluntary retirement had already been accepted by the respondent – Bank, the learned single Judge has rejected the petition and being aggrieved by the order of rejection, this appeal has been filed. 3. We have heard the learned advocates. It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant – original petitioner that the appellant was not informed that his proposal for voluntary retirement was accepted and, therefore, the respondent – Bank ought to have considered his request for withdrawal of his application, which was communicated to the respondent – Bank under letter dated 20-12-2007. 4. Upon hearing the learned advocates and looking to the papers pertaining to the case, we find that the petitioner had already submitted an application requesting the respondent authorities for payment of gratuity and, in fact, gratuity had been paid to him. More over, the amount of provident fund had also been paid to him. Similarly, letter dated 27-11-2007 was communicated to him indicating that his proposal with regard to voluntary retirement had been accepted. Thereafter, letter dated 19-12-2007 was also addressed to the appellant (the said letter was not served upon the appellant though it was addressed properly). 5. Looking to the above facts, in our opinion, the learned single Judge has rightly rejected the petition because the appellant could not have asked for withdrawal of the earlier application after his request for voluntary retirement had been accepted. Acceptance had been duly communicated to the appellant and was also acted upon because in pursuance of the request of the appellant, the amount of gratuity and provident fund had also been paid to him. 6. For the aforestated reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeal and the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th August, 2009 ks