The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a resignation has been accepted and acted upon, it cannot be withdrawn. Additionally, the court clarified that a discharge at the petitioner's own request does not entitle him to retirement benefits or disability pension.

Mihir Kumar Jha, J.-Heard Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:

"1 (I) For a direction upon the respondents to cancel the illegal discharge of the petitioner in view of the fact that he had withdrawn his letter of resignation before its acceptance.

(II) For a direction upon the respondents to take the petitioner back in service with all consequential benefits."

3. During the pendency of this writ application the petitioner by filing I.A. No.329 of 2010 has also sought an additional relief for quashing of an order dated 26.6.2006 describing it to be his order of discharge from service of Armed Force.

4. In support of the aforementioned prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner had already withdrawn his letter of resignation dated 21.9.2005 seeking voluntary retirement from the service in Indian Armed Force by filing an application on 15.5.2006, the later decision by the Army authorities to retire the petitioner with effect from 31.5.2006 should have been automatically recalled, inasmuch as, the petitioner had a right to change his decision before being given retirement. He has further tried to make out a case that the petitioner was actually compulsorily retired from Army service on the ground of Low Medical Category and, therefore, he should have been offered some other job as per his physical condition in stead of being altogether retired from Army service, which had the effect of denying him either pension or disability pension.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Sarvadeo Singh learned counsel for the respondents in the light of the stand taken in the counter affidavit, has submitted that the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement on his personal ground by filing an application on 21.9.2005 and all such applications including that of the petitioner after consideration by the competent authority were disposed of by an order dated 9.10.2005 and the petitioner's discharge by way of acceptance of his resignation from service was also communicated and acted upon by directing him to report in Bihar Regimental Center, Danapur for discharge drill with effect from 7.5.2006 in order to relieve on 31.5.2006. He would also point out that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner had also reported for discharge drill in Bihar Regimental Center on 7.5.2006 and, thereafter, he had filed an application for recalling his resignation on 15.5.2006 which could not have been acted upon in view of aforesaid acceptance order dated 9.10.2005 as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit.

6. Mr. Singh has also submitted that as a matter of fact after the petitioner stood retired w.e.f. 1.6.2006 he had filed an application on 9.6.2006 seeking reinstatement in service even by way of alternative employment on some other post or payment of retirement benefit which was also rejected by the competent authority by an order dated 26.6.2006. In this regard he has also explained that the aforesaid order dated 26.6.2006, rejecting both of his aforesaid claims namely either for reinstatement in service or for payment of retirement benefit, was in fact made subject matter of a writ application CWJC No. 2761 of 2007 which was dismissed by this Court on 18.4.2009 in view of the letter of the resignation of the petitioner dated 21.9.2005 requesting for his voluntary discharge on his own ground of his family problems. He would accordingly submit that in the given circumstances, the petitioner's this second writ application literally against the same cause of action would not be maintainable.

7. Mr. Prasad in reply would submit that when an order dated 18.4.2009 in CWJC No. 2761 of 2007 was passed dismissing the writ petition and this Court in the present writ application by an interim order dated 18.8.2009 had held it to be barred by the principles of constructive res judicata