JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Jai Prakash Prasad for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. This intra court appeal is against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.11.2021 passed in Writ-A No. 20146 of 2019 whereby the writ petition of the appellant seeking quashment of the order accepting the prayer of the writ petitioner for voluntary retirement from service with effect from 30.06.2018 and a direction upon the opposite party to decide petitioner's representation for cancellation of the acceptance order, has been dismissed.

3. The facts of the case have been succinctly narrated in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment therefore instead of restating those facts we deem it appropriate to reproduce the said paragraph below:-

"2. Facts, as have been pleaded in the writ petition, are that petitioner was a staff nurse and was posted in District Bijnor. After the State of Uttarakhand was created, she was permitted to opt for State of Uttar Pradesh vide order dated 26.12.2008. The petitioner, consequently, joined on 18.2.2009 at Saharanpur. She submitted an application for voluntary retirement alongwith which she also submitted an affidavit clearly stating that she is no longer desirous of serving the State and her application for voluntary retirement be accepted. The application form annexed alongwith the affidavit made a request to retire the petitioner voluntarily w.e.f. 30.6.2018. No orders apparently were passed on this application and the petitioner was allowed to continue till the month of October. It is by the order impugned that petitioner's voluntary retirement has been accepted w.e.f. 30.6.2018. It is after passing of the impugned order that petitioner who was residing in State of Uttarakhand made a request to recall the order on the ground that she be permitted to serve the employer."

4. Before the learned Single Judge, two grounds were pressed, namely, (a) that an application, under Fundamental Rule 56(c), seeking voluntary retirement would require a minimum three month's notice whereas the application submitted by the writ petitioner on 06.04.2008 sought voluntary retirement from 30.06.2018, which was less than three months, therefore, the same was defective and could not have been acted upon; and (b) that the acceptance order dated 09.05.2019 could not have directed retirement with effect from 30.06.2018.

5. The state-respondents contested the petition by claiming that no prayer was made to withdraw the application seeking voluntary retirement before its acceptance therefore, once the application was accepted, there was no occasion for the writ petitioner (the appellant herein) to have a grievance in respect thereof.

6. The learned Single Judge upon noticing the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 (c) and (d) observed that the period of notice provided in Fundamental Rule 56(c) is for the benefit of the appointing authority whereas, by virtue of sub clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (d) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, the appointing authority is empowered to retire the Government servant on a shorter notice or forthwith and, for the period by which such notice is short, the Government servant is entitled to pay plus allowances at the same rates at which he was drawing immediately before his retirement. Thus, even if the notice period was shorter than three months it did not make it defective. The learned Single Judge also noticed the second proviso to sub-clause (ii) of clause (d) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules which provided that the notice once given by a Government Servant under clause (c) seeking voluntary retirement can not be withdrawn except with the permission of the appointing authority. Having noticed those provisions, the learned Single Judge held that as there existed no dispute with regard to service of retirement notice on the appointing authority and there existed no material to indicate that a prayer to withdraw the notice was made before its acceptance, the