Delhi High Court
R. K. Gupta vs Delhi Public School Society on 25 February, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 25.02.2011
+ RSA No.112/2010 & CMs No.10667-68/2010
R.K. GUPTA.
...........Appellant
Through: Mr.Rajeev Kumar, Advocate.
Versus
DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY.
..........Respondent.
Through: Mr.Puneet Mittal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 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.
2 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.
3 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.
4 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.
5 These findings were endorsed in the impugned judgment by
the first appellate Court.
6 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:-
"1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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?
4. 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?"
7 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.
8 No substantial question of law has arisen. There is no merit
in this appeal.
9 Appeal as also pending applications are dismissed in limine.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
FEBRUARY 25, 2011
a
