( 1. ) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 13-12-2004 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, Circuit Bench, Indore in O. A. No. 1002/2000 whereby the petition filed by the respondent was allowed and the order dated 17-4-2000 passed by the petitioner was quashed with a further direction to the petitioner to treat the respondent to have continuously worked till the date of actual superannuation and grant him arrears of salary and other emoluments including increments and to get his pensionary benefits re-fixed accordingly, the present petition has been filed.

( 2. ) SHORT facts of the case are that the respondent was in service of petitioner and was working as Manager. Respondent vide letter dated 31-12-1999 tendered three months notice for voluntary retirement with effect from 31-3-2000. The resignation was accepted by the Competent Authority vide order dated 10-2-2000, before 31-3-2000. On 22-3-2000, i. e. , 10 days before the last date of expiry of notice period the respondent moved an application whereby it was submitted that the respondent is withdrawing the notice dated 31-12-1999 whereby the respondent intimated that the respondent wants to retire from his service with effect from 31-3-2000. The application submitted by respondent for withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement was rejected by the petitioner vide order dated 17-4-2000. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17-4-2000, the petition was filed before the learned Tribunal which was allowed by the impugned order.

( 3. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that while allowing the petition, learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration Sub-rule (2) of Rule 48 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which reads as under: 48. Retirement on completion of 30 years qualifying service. (1) *** *** *** (2) A Government servant, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the necessary intimation to that effect to the Appointing Authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his election subsequently except with the specific approval of such authority.

( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that notice dated 31-12-1999 given by the respondent was accepted on 10-2-2000 and no permission was sought from the Appointing Authority for withdrawing the notice, therefore, learned Tribunal committed error in allowing the petition. It is also submitted that the respondent has not assigned any reason for withdrawal of his intention to retire, which is necessary. Further contention is that on 14-9-2000, the respondent has accepted all the retiral benefits, therefore, the respondent was precluded to pursue the petition against the order dated 17-4-2000 whereby the application dated 22-3-2000 submitted by the respondent was rejected.

( 5. ) SHRI D. M. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondent supports the order passed by Tribunal. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra, reported in AIR1978 SC 694 , [1978 (37 )FLR16 ], (1978 )I LLJ492 SC , (1978 )2 SCC301 , [1978 ]3 SCR12 , wherein the sitting Judge of Allahabad High Court who was appointed as Additional Judge on 7-10-1963 and was to attain the age of 62 years on 1-9-1986 submitted a hand addressed letter to the President of India on 7-5-1997 wherein it was stated that his resignation shall be effective from 1-8-1977. On 15-7-1977 another letter was written to President of India whereby it is submitted that he revoke and cancel the intention expressed by him to resign on 1-8-1977. The concerned Judge cut short his leave and resume his duty as Judge with effect from 16-7-1977 and commenced sitting in the Court and deciding the cases from 18-7-1977. In these circumstances, the Honble Apex Court observed that power to withdraw the resignation is implied. Further reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of Da Irani Gupta v. Union of India, reported in 1987 (Suppl.) SCC 228, wherein the Honble Apex Court consider