HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4956 OF 1999 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner who was working as Head Constable Driver Grade – II in Railway Protection Force questioned the proceedings No.D/XP.579/1/Vol.V (Divisional Order No.89/96) dated 24-04-1996 by which his representation for voluntary retirement was accepted. Petitioner was appointed in Railway Protection Force on 01-11-1973. Initially he was appointed as Constable and thereafter promoted as Head Constable Driver Grade – III in January 1980 and further promoted as Head Constable Driver Grade – II in 1992. Stating the ground of ill health, petitioner himself made a representation on 29-01-1996 for voluntary retirement and retired from service vide impugned proceedings dated 24-04-1996 issued by respondent No.1 accepting the representation made by the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he made representation for voluntary retirement on the ground of his ill health, but soon after his recovery he also made a representation dated 22-03-1996 for withdrawal of his earlier representation dated 29-01-1996. But, in spite of the same, respondent No.1 has issued the impugned proceedings accepting the petitioner’s earlier representation dated 29-01-1996 for voluntary retirement. The Senior Security Commissioner of the Railway Protection Force has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents generally denying all the allegations made by the petitioner. It is categorically stated that they did not receive any representation dated 22-03-1996 from the petitioner for withdrawal of his earlier representation dated 29- 01-1996 for voluntary retirement. Further, it is also stated that if any representation is made, as per the circular instructions issued by the Railway Board vide circular No.140/77 and Rule 67(3)(b) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993 withdrawal can be permitted within a period of three months from the date of submission of the representation. It is also averred that pursuant to acceptance of the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement vide impugned proceedings, his pensionary and other retirement benefits were determined and paid. In this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner himself made a representation for his voluntary retirement and acting upon the same proceedings dated 24-04-1996 were issued by respondent No.1 permitting him to retire from service on account of his ill health. The only basis for filing this petition is the representation dated 22-03-1996, the receipt of which is categorically denied in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. The said averment is not rebutted by way of any reply. Further, as the impugned order is passed on the representation of the petitioner, in the absence of any further representation by him as alleged on 22-03-196 and further having received the pensionary and other retirement benefits, it is not open to him to question the same. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J June 10, 2008. PV