Delhi High Court
Sachin Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors. on 3 December, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: December 03, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 9435/2015
SACHIN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. L.N. Anchal & Mr. A.K.
Kaushik, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Central
Government Standing Counsel for
respondent No.1-UOI
Mr. Shivram, Advocate for
respondents No.2 to 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Non acceptance of withdrawal of resignation is assailed by
petitioner in this writ petition.
On 9th January, 2012, petitioner had resigned from the post of
Deputy Manager (Kuwait) while he was under employment of second
respondent and the ground of resignation was 'personal reasons'.
Petitioner had sought acceptance of resignation with immediate effect and
wanted to be relieved by 16th January, 2012 after adjusting the balance
leave against the notice period.
According to second respondent, petitioner's resignation was
accepted on 20th January, 2012 by relieving him w.e.f. 16th January, 2012,
as sought by petitioner. For settlement of the outstanding dues, petitioner
was advised to contact F & A Division of second respondent.
On 19th March, 2012 (Annexure P-2), petitioner had sought
withdrawal of resignation. Vide letter of 17th April, 2012 (Annexure P-3),
second respondent had issued Experience Certificate wherein the date of
relieving was given as 16th January, 2012 but at the end of the letter, it
was stated that this letter may be treated as relieving letter.
Petitioner claims to have represented to Chairman-cum-Managing
Director of second respondent on 24th April, 2012 (Annexure P-4) for
reconsideration of withdrawal of his resignation but according to
petitioner, no response was received. Petitioner claims that even to the
reminder of 1st January, 2014 (Annexure P-5) sent to second respondent,
no response was received and then petitioner had submitted a
Representation to the Minister concerned seeking reinstatement. But
according to petitioner, no response was received.
Petitioner relies upon information obtained in March, 2014 under
Right to Information Act by one-Parveen Kumar to show that the
Communication of acceptance of resignation was never conveyed to
petitioner. In August, 2014, petitioner had written to the Chairman-cum-
Managing Director of the second respondent highlighting that he has been
victimized but it was refuted by second respondent in September, 2014.
Again in November, 2014, petitioner had sent a Representation to the
concerned Minister requesting his reinstatement in service of second
respondent, on which comments of respondent No.3 were sought in
January, 2015 and in May, 2015, petitioner had sought information under
Right to Information Act regarding response to this application by the
Minister concerned. In June, 2015, Central Information Commissioner
(CIC) had directed that legal opinion obtained by second respondent be
supplied to petitioner and it was accordingly supplied. The legal opinion
(Annexure P-16) furnished to second respondent shows that the letter of
acceptance of resignation was communicated to petitioner and that the
relationship of employee-employer came to an end and so, it was opined
that there was no justification to permit withdrawal of resignation.
During the course of hearing, respondent's counsel had also raised
the plea of delay and latches but upon finding that petitioner had all along
been obtaining information through Right to Information Act and
corresponding with second respondent and the concerned Minister, I find
that on the ground of delay and latches, this writ petition cannot be
thrown out.
Upon hearing and on perusal of acceptance of resignation letter
(Annexure P-1), application seeking withdrawal of resignation (Annexure
P-2) and the material on record, I find that though it is the case of second
respondent that resignation of petitioner was accepted on 20 th January,
2012 (Annexure P-1) but question which falls for consideration is as to
whether on which date and by which mode this acceptance of resignation
(Annexure P-1) was conveyed to petitioner. In view of dictum of Apex
Court in North Zone Cultural Centre and Another v. Vedpathi Dinesh
Kumar (2003) 5 SCC 455, the question of communication of acceptance
of resignation has to be considered in the light of the relevant applicable
rules. Since the application for withdrawal of resignation has not been
duly considered and decided in accordance with the applicable Rules and
Regulations, therefore, the appropriate course to adopt would be to direct
the competent authority of second respondent to effectively decide
petitioner's application for withdrawal of his resignation.
Learned counsel for respondent has produced record which
apparently does not indicate that acceptance of resignation was conveyed
to petitioner at any point of time. The application for withdrawal of
resignation has not been effectively considered by second respondent the
way it should have been done. This application is required to be
considered by the CMD of second respondent. The communication of
17th March, 2012 (Annexure P-3) by Group General Manager of second
respondent to petitioner simply talks of adjustment of the balance
amount. It nowhere states that the withdrawal of resignation has been
either accepted or declined by second respondent. Even Communication
of 17th April, 2012 (Annexure P-3) does not talk of withdrawal of
resignation, as sought by petitioner, which simply mentions the date of
relieving.
Learned counsel for respondent also points out that after seeking
relieval from service w.e.f. 16th January, 2012 petitioner has been
working elsewhere. In any case, this cannot be a ground to reject
petitioner's application for withdrawal of resignation because petitioner
cannot be expected to come on road and has to earn his livelihood for
survival.
Since petitioner's application for withdrawal of his resignation has
not been decided by second respondent, therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to direct second
respondent to decide petitioner's application (Annexure P-2) for
withdrawal of resignation within a period of six weeks by passing a
speaking order and to convey the fate of the Representation to petitioner
within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies, as
available in the law, if need be.
To ensure compliance of this judgment, its copy be sent to second
respondent forthwith.
With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 03, 2015
r/s
