Shantanu Kemkar, J. -- 1. This intra Court appeal has been directed against the order dated 6.2.2002 passed by Single Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 188 of 2002.

2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant was working on the post of Security Gurad in M.P. Police Housing Corporation (for short, "the Corporation"). In pursuance to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme floated by the Corporation on the basis of a decision taken by the State Government to close down the Corporation, the appellant submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement. In the said application he incorporated a condition that his application for voluntary retirement should be considered only in the event of closure of the Corporation and not in event of amalgamation/reorganization or Transfer. The said application submitted by the appellant was accepted by the Corporation vide order dated 28.11.2001 (Annexure P-7) w.e.f. 7.12.2001.

3. The case of the appellant is that till the order dated 28.11.2001 and even till today, the Corporation has not been closed down by the State Government and in the circumstances, acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement was illegal. It is also his case that prior to his actual date of release from employment, which was 7.12.2001, as per the acceptance letter dated 28.11.2001 he had already submitted a letter dated 6.12.2001 (Annexure P-8) seeking withdrawal of his proposal of voluntary retirement and prayed for giving hi In an opportunity to serve. However his prayer was not acceded to and he has been retired on the basis of the said order dated 28.11.2001 w.e.f. 7.12.2001. Feeling aggrieved the appellant had filed a W.P. No 188 of 2002 before this Court.

4. The said writ petition No. 188/2002 was dismissed on 6.2.2002 in limine. Challenging the said order dated 6.2.2002 passed by learned Single Judge, this writ appeal has been filed.

5. The contention of Shri S.C. Bagadiya, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had submitted a letter dated 6.12.2001 (Annexure P-9) for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement a day prior to his date of release, in the circumstances, the Corporation should not have acted upon the order dated 28.11.2001 (Annexure P-7) which was to take effect on 7.12.2001. He submits that because the actual date of release of the appellant was 7.12.2001 and till then the jural relationship of employee and employer between the appellant and respondent Corporation did not come to an end, the appellant had locus penitential to withdraw his proposal for voluntary retirement. He argued that appellant's application was a conditional one and the Corporation having not been closed the impugned order dated 28.11.2001 is contrary to the Scheme for voluntary retirement.

6. Shri D.D. Vyas. learned Senior counsel for the second respondent Corporation argued that in view of a dear clause No.3, contained in the voluntary retirement scheme (Annexure P-5), the option exercised by the appellant could not have been taken back by him. He submits that the appellant having taken new grounds in writ appeal by amending writ petition, this writ appeal may be dismissed directing the appellant to file fresh petition. In the alternative he submits that writ petition being dismissed in motion hearing without issuing notice to the Corporation, the matter be remanded to learned Single Judge for fresh decision. He also placed reliance on the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.P Housing Corporation and another v. Anil Pradhan and another. W.A. No. 202 of 2006 decided on 10.4.2007. He further submits that in the similar circumstances a W.P. No. 1040 of 2002 filed by Smt. Babita Francis was dismissed by a learned Single Judge vide order dated 30.9.2002. The LPA No. 347 of 2002 filed against the said order was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 2.12.2002.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and per