Dilip Taank vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Initially, this petition was filed before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short ''the Tribunal'') and registered as O.A. No. 847/2000. Thereafter, the case was transferred to this Court on dissolution of the Tribunal and was re-numbered as W.P. (S) No. 3374/2005. The petitioner seeks relief to the extent that since his resignation has not been accepted nor rejected, he is entitled to the amount of G.P.F. and service.

The facts, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as work-charged Sub Overseer (Mech.) in the year 1968 (Annexure A/1). Thereafter, by letter dated 23.05.1979 (Annexure A/2) the petitioner sought resignation by letter to the Engineer-in-Chief, PWD (B&R), Bhopal. Immediately, On receipt of the resignation letter, the Executive Engineer, E&M Division, PWD (B&R) Raipur, informed to the petitioner to settle the outstanding dues which was to the tune of Rs. 1454.05 vide communication dated 23.06.1979 (Annexure A/3). Thereafter, on 08.10.1979 (Annexure A/4), it was pointed out by the petitioner in his letter addressed to the Executive Engineer, E&M Division PWD (B&R) Raipur, that reply to the memo dated 23.06.1979 has already been submitted though, neither the contents was mentioned in the letter nor reply, allegedly sent to the Executive Engineer, has teen produced before this Court. After resignation letter, the petitioner remained away from the duty and submitted a letter dated 16.09.1999 (Annexure A/6), after a period of 20 years, seeking withdrawal of his resignation letter dated 23.05.1979. Thereafter, the petitioner attempted to join the service on 16.09.1999 (Annexure A/ 7) which was declined.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the resignation letter of the petitioner was not accepted by the authorities, it may be deemed that the petitioner continued in service and accordingly the petitioner is entitled to benefit of service and G.P.F.

On the other hand, Shri Dubey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that no action on the resignation letter of the petitioner could be taken as the outstanding dues to the tune of Rs. 1454.05 was pending and the petitioner was immediately informed on receipt of his resignation letter to settle the said amount. Further, the petitioner remained absent from duties for about 23 years till he attempted to join the service again on 16.09.1999. Shri Dubey next contends that once the notice date has been specified, whether resignation is accepted or not, service of the petitioner comes to an end after completion of one month and the position was also accepted by the petitioner as he had not attempted to join service thereafter for more than 20 years and as such, he is not entitled to any benefit and the said period cannot be treated as continuation in service.

On perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner has sent his resignation on 23.05.1979 wherein it is clearly stated that the petitioner be relieved from the post on completion of one month w.e.f. 29.05.1979 and the petitioner, having accepted the position, remained absent thereafter. It is also not found proved as to whether the petitioner has responded to the letter dated 23.06.1979 (Annexure A/3) whereby he was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1454.05 as outstanding dues. It is further not in dispute that after a period of 20 years, he wrote letter seeking joining in service, which was not granted.

Be that as it may, if the resignation letter was not accepted, the petitioner ought to have continued his duties. The petitioner did not make any effort to join the service and work therein. He accepted the position and abstained from his duties. Even otherwise, if the date is notified in the resignation, flat would come into effect after a period of one month, the resignation letter is deemed to have I been accepted.

So far as payment of outstanding dues is concerned, that was for settlement of dues which the petitioner, it appears had deliberately ignored the same. Thus, the attempt of the petitioner after more than 20 years to join the service, was rightly rejected.

Reliance of Shri Sharma on a decision of the Supreme Court in Padubidri Damodar Shenoy Vs. Indian Airlines Limited and Another, is not relevant in the case on hand as in the said case, regulation 12(b) and first proviso to (Indian Airlines) Service Regulation for Employees (other than those in the Flying Crew and those in the Aircraft Engineering Departments) clearly provides for acceptance of resignation letter. In this case, no rules or regulations have been pointed out by the petitioner to establish that acceptance of the resignation letter is mandatory.

The Supreme Court, in Nand Keshwar Prasad Vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. and Others, held as under:

After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that the law is well settled by this Court in a number of decisions that unless controlled by condition of service or the statutory provisions, the retirement mentioned in the letter of resignation must take effect from the date mentioned therein and such date cannot be advanced by accepting the resignation from an earlier date when the employee concerned did not intend to retire from such earlier date. It has also been held by this Court that it is open to the employee concerned to withdraw letter of resignation before the same becomes effective.

Thus, looking into the conduct of die petitioner as after one month''s notice period was over, he remained absent and he further did not respond to the letter dated 23.06.1979 (Annexure A/3) and also no Rules/Regulations have been pointed out by either party, wherein it is necessary to accept the resignation, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, as prayed in this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.