Permod Kohli, J.

1. Petitioner was serving with respondent No. 1, a Government of India Corporation. Respondent No. 1 sponsored Voluntary Retirement Scheme for its employees. Petitioner applied for voluntary retirement on 31.10.1996. His application remained pending. Petitioner having a second thought, withdrew his request for voluntary retirement by his application dated 31.7.1997. That application also remained pending. Government of India, Ministry of Industry vide its memorandum dated 19.5.1998, enhanced the age of retirement of the employees of public sector undertakings from 58 years to 60 years. In the meanwhile, petitioner sought medical leave w.e.f. 1.4.1998 and was to join on expiry of leave after 16.5.1998. While he was on medical leave, respondents passed an order dated 4.5.1998, retiring the petitioner from service by accepting his request for voluntary retirement. It is alleged that even this order was not communicated to him. Petitioner approached respondent-Corporation to rejoin his duty on 18.5.1998 when he was informed that he has already been retired from service w.e.f. 4.5.1998. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.5.1998 in this petition on the ground that retirement order is illegal and contrary to law. According to the petitioner, he had withdrawn his request for voluntary retirement by an application elated 31.7.1997. When he applied for withdrawal of his request for voluntary retirement, respondents had not taken any decision to retire him and thus the impugned Order retiring him from service is not sustainable in law. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is also entitled to benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 58 years to 60 years and the impugned order deprived him of this benefit. Accordingly, petitioner has prayed for quashment of the impugned order and for his continuance in service till the age of 60 years or in the alternative to give benefit of voluntary retirement scheme treating his age of retirement as 60 years. No counter-affidavit has been filed and hence the factual averments made in the writ petition remained unrebutted.

2. Petitioner has placed on record a copy of the memorandum dated 19.5.1998, issued by the Ministry of Industry, Department of Public Enterprises, Government of India, whereby decision was taken to enhance age of retirement for employees of Central Public Sector Enterprises from 58 years to 60 years. A copy of the request letter of the petitioner withdrawing his earlier request for voluntary retirement is also on record. In the order impugned in this petition, it is mentioned that request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement under the HECL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1990 has been accepted with immediate effect and petitioner was ordered to be released from Corporation on 4.5.1998 i.e the date of passing of this order. No reference is made to the application of the petitioner withdrawing his request for voluntary retirement in the impugned order and in absence of counter/reply, there does not seem to be any valid reason for non-consideration or non-acceptance of the request of the petitioner made by application dated 31.7.1997 withdrawing his request for voluntary retirement. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that respondents have passed the order discharging the petitioner from service giving him voluntary retirement without considering his later request. In absence of any reply, it can also be concluded that there are no valid reasons for rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 31.7.1997. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has referred to a judgment of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 670 of 1999(R) decided on 31.3.2003. In this case, writ petition was dismissed on two grounds (1) being belated application and (2) the writ petitioner had accepted the retirement compensation under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. In the present case, petitioner filed this petition on 19.3.1999 and there is nothing on