WP(C) 4098/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. D. K. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Jahan, le arned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr . Govt. Advocate. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the Annexu re-Q letter dated 21.6.2010, by which the purported resignation from service ten dered by the petitioner has been accepted w.e.f. 14.6.2010. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, the petitioner expressed his willingness to go on voluntary retirement. In fact, the records have revealed that the petitioner ha d offered for voluntary retirement from service but instead of accepting the sam e, the respondents have allowed him to go on resignation from service. As recorded in the order dated 15.11.2010, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner having not completed 20 years of qualifying service as of 18.12.2009, on which date he had submitted the application for voluntary retire ment, his offer could not be accepted. However, the petitioner has been allowed to go from service on acceptance of resignation w.e.f. 14.6.2010 vide order date d 21.6.2010, on which date the petitioner had completed 20 years of service. As recorded in the said order, on 14.6.2010, the petitioner was short of 5 (five) d ays in completing 20 years of qualifying service. The records have revealed that the case of the petitioner was processed and initiated for voluntary retirement. As recorded in the said order, if the pe titioner had not completed 20 years of qualifying service, he could have been in formed and accordingly his voluntary retirement could have been accepted on comp letion of 20 years of qualifying service w.e.f. 19.6.2010. Noticing the aforesaid fact revealed from the records, the learned State Counsel was requested to obtain further instruction. Today, she had produced th e letter dated 3.12.2010 addressed to her by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Public Health Engineering Department, in which the petitioner had been s erving as Assistant Engineer. In the letter, altogether a different stand has be en taken. It has been stated that since the petitioner remained unauthorisedly a bsent from service w.e.f. 17.3.2008 till the acceptance of his resignation by th e Govt. on 14-21/6/2010, the said period of service cannot be counted towards qu alifying service of 20 years for voluntary retirement. The aforesaid stand in the letter dated 3.12.2010 is not reflected in th e official records. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as to whether the petitioner remained absent from duty unauthrisedly w.e.f. 17.3 .2008 is a disputed question of fact. He also submits that for the purpose of ac ceptance of voluntary retirement offered by the petitioner, the period of absenc e in the given circumstances can also be regularised by granting, if need be, e xtra-ordinary leave. Apart from the above, since the very offer made by the petitioner was fo r voluntary retirement and the process was also initiated for acceptance of such voluntary retirement, later on the respondents could not have converted the sam e as an offer to resign from service. In the fitness of the case, it will be app ropriate for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for acceptan ce of voluntary retirement on completion of qualifying service. It is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to any salary for the period of his ab sence. The matter shall now go back to the authority for reconsideration of the matter relating to offer of voluntary retirement and acceptance thereof in acco rdance with the rules. It is also made clear that the impugned order will not s tand in the way of the respondents to give the fresh consideration consistently with the observations made above. Let the entire exercise be carried out as expeditiously as possible, pre ferably within 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of th is order. There shall be no order as to costs.