R.K. Gupta vs Delhi Public School Society

Indermeet Kaur, J.—The present appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2009 which had endorsed the findings of the trial Judge dated 24.08.2006 whereby the suit filed by the Plaintiff Sh. R.K. Gupta seeking a declaration and injunction against the Defendant i.e. Delhi Public School Society to the effect that the resignation which he had tendered on 31.07.1993 could not have been acted upon in view of the fact that it had not been validly accepted by the Defendant had been dismissed.

The Plaintiff was working as a Principal in Delhi Public School, Vindhyanchal. Vide his letter dated 31.07.1993 (admitted document) he had tendered his resignation. On 31.08.1993, he had written a letter to the Principal handing over the school documents and keys of the flat which were under his occupation as an employee of the Defendant. The letter specifically states that one briefcase, three files, stamp, amendment in the affiliation of the bye-laws and a counter foil of the cheque book are being handed over and the same be acknowledged. On 10.09.1993, he again wrote to the school for release of his salary and his provident fund. On 30.09.1993, a letter was again written by the Plaintiff to the Defendant reminding them that his dues be paid to him. All these documents are admitted documents. The contention of the Defendant was that the Plaintiff had himself acted upon the resignation and could not subsequently vide order dated 16.10.1995 go back on this resignation. Even otherwise, the suit had been filed in the year 1998 challenging the resignation tendered by him on 31.07.1993 was time barred.

The trial Judge had framed seven issues. While disposing of issue No. 6, the trial Judge was of the view that the suit was barred by limitation. Suit was filed in March, 1998 seeking a declaration that his resignation dated 31.07.1993 be declared null and void; this issue was decided against the Plaintiff.

While disposing of issues No. 1 to 3, the Court was of the view that the reliefs claimed by the Plaintiff were not entitled to him in view of the admitted documentary evidence exchanged between the parties which included the correspondences as aforenoted which were after the date of the resignation tendered by the Plaintiff. All these documents are admitted documents. Trail Judge had noted that in the letter dated 10.09.1993, the Plaintiff had himself admitted that he was an Ex-principal. On merits also, his suit was dismissed.

These findings were endorsed in the impugned judgment by the first appellate Court.

This is a second appeal. Substantial questions of law have been formulated at page 3 of the body of the appeal. They read as under:

Whether limitation for filing a suit for declaration with consequential reliefs of mandatory and permanent injunction with regard to an employee who has tendered his resignation under force/compulsion and later on withdrew it before its acceptance or communication will start from the date of such resignation of from the date of withdrawal or alleged acceptance or alleged communication thereof to the employee?

Whether, in the absence of any particulars in the written statement in respect of the alleged acceptance or communication of the said resignation and in the absence of any oral or documentary evidence whatsoever, the alleged acceptance of resignation of an employee can be presumed?

Whether the adverse inference should not have been drawn against the Respondent who has failed to place on record, any document to prove its allegation that the said resignation which was given by the Appellant under force/compulsion was accepted and communicated before the withdrawal of the same by the Appellant/Plaintiff?

Whether the findings of the Ld. Trial court as well as the first Appellate Court on the issue of limitation are perverse, illegal and unsustainable in the absence of any oral or documentary evidence with regard to alleged acceptance or communication thereof of the resignation, to the Appellant/Plaintiff?

They are all facts based and have been gone into in detail by the two courts below. Both the facts finding courts have returned a positive finding against the Appellant holding that the suit of the Plaintiff was barred by limitation; in 1998, he could not challenge a resignation which have been given by him in July, 1993; suit was dismissed on merits also in view of the correspondences exchanged between the parties particularly the letter written by him wherein he had acted upon his resignation and returned the files & documents of the Defendant including the keys of the flat; he was sending reminders to the Defendant asking them to pay his dues. These findings can in no manner be said to be perverse.

No substantial question of law has arisen. There is no merit in this appeal.

Appeal as also pending applications are dismissed in limine.