Mridula Bhatkar, J.

1. This petition is filed against the order passed by CAT dated 011.2002 by which the order of voluntary retirement of the respondent on 30.11.1998 was held bad in law and quashed.

2. Factual Matrix : The respondent, in the year 1998 was holding the post of Superintendent GradeII in the Southern Command, Pune Unit. He gave notice dated 28th April, 1998 to the Chief Engineer, Southern Command of intended voluntary retirement w.e.f. 37.1998 i.e. after completion of 20 of years service. On 13th May, 1998, he again wrote a letter and informed that he wanted to reconsider his decision of voluntary retirement. On 1st September, 1998, he again wrote letter stating that he intended to take VRS w.e.f. 30.11.1998 and also gave undertaking that he will not withdraw his application for voluntary retirement under any circumstance. The Chief Administrative Officer, by letter dated 21st September, 1998, accepted the said request for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30th November, 1998. The respondent, thereafter, on 20.11.1998, sent a letter and informed the authority about his deferment of date of his retirement on the ground of health as he was suffering from Lumber Spondilitis and in the said letter, he prayed that two months medical leave be granted to him. He also stated that he will intimate the date of retirement as soon as possible. The Administrative officer, by letter dated 27th November, 1998, refused to accept the date of deferrment

of voluntary retirement by rejecting the medical leave and ordered the respondent to remain present on 30.111998 as he was supposed to be on duty on the last date of his retirement. On 30.11.1998, the respondent joined duty and submitted joining report alongwith medical certificate of Sharda Clinic. However, on the same day, the Administrative Officer gave him an order of retirement. The respondent, challenged the said order of his voluntary retirement before the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing a petition bearing No. 1090 of 1999 . The Tribunal decided the said petition in favour of the respondent by its judgement and order dated 11.2002.

Being aggrieved with the said judgement and order, this petition is filed by the petitioners Union of India.

3. Rival Submissions: The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondent has not withdrawn his application of VRS. He has informed about the deferment of the date of retirement and there is no such provision of deferment in the scheme of Voluntary retirement for Central Government employees which was adopted on/from 26th August, 1977. It was also submitted that, the petitioners have accepted the request of the petitioner of Voluntary retirement by writing him letter of 21st September, 1998 and once such acceptance is communicated, then it was necessary for the respondent to place the application for withdrawal of his request for Voluntary retirement, to the competent authority. Further, the withdrawal is always subject to the approval of the appointing/competent authority. The learned Advocate argued that the ratio laid down in the case of KLE society Vs. Dr. R. R. Patil, reported in 2002 (5) SCC 278 ought not to have been made applicable in the facts of the present case when there was no material change in the circumstance to accept the request of respondents of deferment of the date of retirement.

4. The learned Advocate for the respondent in reply has submitted that despite the intimation of deferment of the date of retirement by the respondent, the petitioners have illegally made the respondent to retire voluntarily on 30.11.1998. He further argued before us that the notice of such communication of deferment was given within a period of 90 days i.e. within the stipulated notice period. In his submission, deferment was nothing but a withdrawal of his request for VRS. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly set aside the order of retirement passed by the Competent authority. In support of his argumen