Dinesh Kumar Mishra vs Union Of India
2012 Latest Caselaw 1462 Del

$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Date of Decision: 01.03.2012

+                      LPA No.1102/2011

      DINESH KUMAR MISHRA                 ..... Appellant
           Represented by: Mr.Amit Sachdeva with
                           Mr.Debashis Mukherjee, Advocates.

                              versus

      UNION OF INDIA                     ....Respondent
          Represented by: Mr.Dipak K.Nag with Ms.Debopama
                          Roy, Advocates.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

C.M.No.23623/2011

1. For the reasons stated in the application, 27 days delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The application stands disposed of. C.M.No.23624/2011

1. For the reasons stated in the application, 87 days delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The application stands disposed of. L.P.A No.1102/2011

1. On February 15, 2012, learned senior counsel for the appellant had made a statement that if, upon appellant tendering a resignation, Kendriya Bhandar would accept the same, the appellant would not press the appeal provided

further the order terminating service of the appellant is withdrawn.

2. While on probation, service of the appellant was terminated vide order dated May 11, 2011, which we note is a non-stigmatic order.

3. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that if appellant resigns, the same would be treated with retrospective effect i.e. May 11, 2011 and the small service rendered by the appellant would not entitle him to any monetary compensation in respect of service rendered, either by way of gratuity, pension or any other terminal dues.

4. The appellant is aged 35 years and desires that he should not be compelled to enter in his curriculum-vitae that his services were terminated as a probationer and the reason thereof is that although as per law, a discharge simplicitor of a probationer is not treated to be stigmatic, but the common man gets coloured with the same. The reason is that the common man does not understand the logic of the law.

5. Learned counsel for Kendriya Bhandar states that as per instructions received by him under cover of a letter dated February 25, 2012, his client is agreeable to consider the offer and states that if the appellant were to tender a resignation with retrospective date i.e. May 11, 2011, at the next board meeting of Kendriya Bhandar, the Directors of Kendriya Bhandar would favourably consider the resignation letter submitted by the appellant and would certainly keep in mind that by doing so, no prejudice would be caused to Kendriya Bhandar and the desire of the appellant would be simultaneously satisfied. In said eventuality, learned counsel states that Kendriya Bhandar would withdraw the non-stigmatic

order under which services of the appellant, while on probation, have been terminated.

6. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of observing that if the appellant were to tender a resignation with retrospective effect i.e. May 11, 2011, and the same would be without any condition, the Board of Kendriya Bhandar would be obliged to favourably consider the same and upon it being accepted, the order terminating services of the appellant would be withdrawn and in place an order accepting the resignation submitted by the appellant would be conveyed to the appellant.

7. No costs.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J

PRATIBHA RANI, J

March 01 , 2012 KA