M. R. CALLA J. - (1.) THROUGH this writ petition the petitioner seeks to quash the orders dated 17. 11. 1986 and 22. 03. 1988 whereby his request for revocation of the offer of voluntary retirement under Rule 244 (1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules was turned down. The petitioner joined the services on 16. 07. 1951 as a Peon and was later on promoted as L. D. C. on 14. 09. 1965. In the year 1977 he was promoted as U. D. C. On 18. 07. 1986, the petitioner sent a letter to the Inspector General of Police (Prisons) from the place of his posting i. e. District Jail, Tonk mentioning therein that he had completed 35 years of his service and because of his family circumstances he was not desirous of continuing in the Government service and in case any inquiry is pending against him and if there is any dues from the petitioner the same may be completed and made good before 30. 11. 1986 and his request seeking voluntary retirement under Rule 244 (1) of the R. S. R. may be accepted. Thereupon the Inspector General of Prisons passed an order dated 17. 11. 1986 accepting the petitioner's request of voluntary retirement under Rule 244 (1) from the afternoon of 29th of November, 1986. When this order dated 17. 11. 1986 was received by the petitioner at the place of his posting i. e. Tonk, he submitted an application on that very day i. e. 25. 11. 1986 through the Superintendent to the I. G. P. (Prisons) mentioning, therein that he now does not want to proceed on the voluntary retirement and the orders with regard to the acceptance of his voluntary retirement may be revoked meaning thereby that the petitioner chose to withdraw his offer seeking voluntary retirement under Rule 244 (1) of R. S. R. which was to become effective from 29. 11. 1986. The relevant provisions of Rule 244 (1) are reproduced as under:- 244 (1) Optional Retirement on completion of 20 years qualifying service - (a) A Government servant may, after giving atleast 3 months' previous notice in writing to the Appointing Authority, retire from service on the date on which he completes 20 years of qualifying service or attains the age of 45 years whichever is earlier or any date thereafter to be specified in the notice: Provided that it shall be open to the Appointing Authority to with hold permission to retire a Government servant: (i) who is under suspension; (ii) in whose case disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated for the imposition of a major penalty and the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case is of the view that such disciplinary proceedings might result in imposition of the penalty of removal or dismissal from service; (iii) in whose case prosecution is contemplated or may have been launched in a court of law; (b) A Government servant who has given notice for seeking retirement under clause (a) of this sub-rule, may presume acceptance of the notice of retirement and the retirement shall be effective in terms of the notice automatically unless an order in writing to the contrary has been issued by the Competent Authority and served upon the Government servant before the expiry of the period of the notice (f) A Government servant may, with the approval of the Appointing Authority, withdraw the notice given under clause (a) of this sub-rule provided the request for such withdrawal is made before the expiry of the notice. "
(2.) SHRI K. S. Rathore appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that once the petitioner's offer seeking voluntary retirement under Rule 244 (1) as was made on 18. 07. 1986 had been accepted on 17. 11. 1987 even if from afternoon of 29. 11. 1986 he could not withdraw such offer after 17th of November, 1986 because the same had been accepted on 17. 11. 1986 and it also could not be withdrawn after the expiry of 3 months period because according to him 3 months' period is the period prescribed under Rule 244 (1) of R. S. R. I have considered submissions and find that 3 months' period is the minimum period of notice and the language of Rule 244 (1) permits the period of notice to be even more than 3 months and in the facts of this case the parties have understood this period of notice upto 30. 11. 1986 on the basis of the contents of Annex,l and as is also apparent from the contents of Annex. 2 i. e. order dated 17. 11. 1986, the Inspector General of Prisons held out that the petitioner would stand retired from the afternoon of 29. 11. 1986 meaning thereby that the retirement to be effective from 29. 11. 1986 and it could not become effective prior to 29. 11. 1986. Once it is held that the retirement could be effective from 29. 11. 1986 It cannot gain side that the offer of voluntary retirement could not be withdrawn prior to 29th Nov. 1986. In Rule 244 (1) (f) quoted above it has been further provided that a Government servant may, with the approval of the Appointing Authority withdraw the notice given under clause (a) of the Sub-rule provided the request for such withdrawal is made before the expiry of the notice. In the instant case the notice was to expire on 29. 11. 1986 and, therefore, the request for withdrawing the offer of voluntary retirement could always be made at any time before 29th of November, 1986 and it is clear that the petitioner had sought the withdrawal by his letter dated 25. 11. 1986 which he submitted before the immediate authorities at Tonk i. e. the place of his posting on 25. 11. 1986 itself and the same was also received by the Appointing Authority at Jaipur on 28. 11. 1986. The necessary averments made by the petitioner in para 4 and 5 of the writ petition have been admitted in the reply to the show cause notice filed on behalf of the respondents. Thus I hold it that the offer was withdrawn by the petitioner before the date of the expiry of the notice and before the retirement could become effective. Admittedly, the retirement was to be effective from 29. 11. 1986 and the letter of withdrawal was also received before 29th of November, 1986 even by the Appointing Authority and this is how the petitioner complied with the requirements of Rule 244 (1) (f) and, therefore, there was no justification to turn down the petitioner's request revoking (he offer of voluntary retirement and accordingly it is clear that the order dated 22. 03. 1988 Annex. 5 which has been passed in the facts of this case cannot be said to be an order in accordance with Rules and the petitioner's request revoking the offer of voluntary retirement and accordingly it is clear that the order dated 22. 03. 1988 Annes. 5 which has been passed in the facts of this case cannot be said to be an order in accordance with Rules and the petitioner's request revoking the offer of voluntary retirement should have been accepted. I accordingly set aside the letter Annes. 5 dated 22. 03. 1988 and direct that the petitioner be treated to be continuing in service as if the petitioner had never sought voluntary retirement and as if the order dated 17. 11. 1986 had never been passed against him. The Appointing Authority had passed the final orders with regards to the petitioner on 22. 03. 1988 but this writ petition was filed before this Court on 13. 03. 1989 and now it is stated that the petitioner is going to retire in this very year. Since the petitioner himself has been sitting tight over the final order passed by the Government from 22. 03. 1988 to 13. 03. 1989, the concerned authorities while passing the orders with regard to the period from 30. 11. 1986 to the date of his reinstatement in pursuance of this order would take into consideration, the leave etc. , which is due to the petitioner's credit and would also take into consideration that for the period of 22. 03. 1988 to 13. 03. 1989, the petitioner himself was sleeping over his rights and keeping in view all these factors the appropriate order for the period from 30. 11. 1986 to the date of his reinstatement shall be passed but in no case the petitioner would be put to any prejudice in the matter of computation of length of his service with regard to the pension and for the purpose of pension he will be treated to be throughout continuing in the service as if he has continued throughout. The authorities would take care that the orders with regard to the petitioner's reinstatement are passed atleast before the date on which he attains the normal age of superannuation, The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs. .;