Delhi High Court
Sh. K.L. Bhasin vs United India Insurance Company ... on 13 March, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.4293/2014
% 13th March, 2015
SH. K.L. BHASIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. Anurag Kumar Agarwal, Advocate.
versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. A.K. De, Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Dwivedi, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who was the employee of the respondent/United India Insurance Company Ltd seeks the relief that his resignation letter dated 17.11.2009 be accepted and on the acceptance of the resignation whatever are the dues of an employee who resigns be paid to the petitioner.
2. Following are the relief clauses in the writ petition:-
"(I) Issue a writ of Mandamus and/or of the like nature against the respondent thereby directing the respondent to accept the resignation letter dt.17th Nov.2009 submitted by the petitioner;
(II) Issue a writ of Mandamus and/or of the like nature against the respondent thereby directing the respondent to pay to the petitioner all his terminal dues such as Gratuity, Provident fund, leave encashment, wage revision dues and other benefits attached to his service till the date of his relieving from his post."
3. The respondent has disputed the right of the petitioner by stating that petitioner in terms of service Rule 3 of Chapter 33 of the Personnel Manual Part-II of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') could have given the notice of resignation only if the employee had remained on duty during the period of resignation, and which he had not, and this is stated in para 11 of the counter affidavit which reads as under:-
"11. That I say that the petitioner made several representation both before and after completion of the disciplinary proceedings requesting for acceptance of his resignation, however, the resignation of the petitioner could not be accepted in terms of Rule 2,3 and 4 of Chapter 33 of the personnel manual part-II of the respondent Company. As per the said Rules even officers are required to give notice of three months and not only that he cannot tender resignation in absentia. The said Rules i.e. Rule 2,3 and 4 of Chapter 33 are quoted below:
"2. As per our rules, an Officer has to give notice at the time of tendering his resignation from the Company as under:
(a) An Officer on probation has to give one month notice and
(b) A confirmed Officer has to give three month's notice.
The Officer should be asked to clearly mention in his/her letter of resignation that he/she is resigning from the services of the Company and is also giving notice from a specific date.
3. The notice period will be reckoned from the date of receipt of resignation letter at the place of posting.
(a) The notice shall be deemed proper only if the Officer remains on duty during the notice period. During the notice period, the Officer is not entitled to avail any leave except proportionate Casual Leave. If he/she avails leave other than CL, the sanctioned/availed leave will have the effect of postponing the date of relief or the leave period will be treated as shortfall in notice period.
(b) The Officer is also not entitled to set off Earned Leave against the notice period.
4. If an Officer is unable to give the required notice, he/she has to pay in lieu thereof the gross salary (all components) for the shortfall in notice (either full or in part) as notice pay. It is emphasised that irrespective of whether the Officer joins the Central/State Government services or other Public Sector Undertakings or not, he/she should give the required period of notice."
4. Counsel for the petitioner has made a statement before this Court today that in terms of the very para 11 in the counter affidavit of the respondent, there is reference to Rule 4 of the Rules which states that if the requisite notice cannot be given, at best, an employer will deduct the three months' notice pay and petitioner is ready to bring his services to an end by allowing the respondent to withhold and deduct three months' notice pay.
5. In view of the statement made by the petitioner and Rule 4 of the Rules which is reproduced above, the respondent will now accept the resignation of the petitioner given vide his letter dated 17.11.2009 and the respondent after deducting three months' notice pay will pay to the petitioner whatever are the dues payable to the petitioner as a resigned employee of the respondent within a period of three months from today.
6. Writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations.
MARCH 13, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
