Rampur Bushehar vs Bharath Earth Movers Ltd."
2021 Latest Caselaw 5726 HP

                       7




                                 Reportable
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT




                                               .
                            SHIMLA





        ON THE 14th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
                    BEFORE





    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
                        &





        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
     CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION)
                       NO. 3563 OF 2020


    Between:

      RAM LOK S/O LATE SHRI
      CHANDER SAIN, AGED ABOUT



      37    YEARS,     PRESENTLY
      UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE
      MOLGI, P.O. LAVANA, TEHSIL




      RAMPUR           BUSHEHAR,
      DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.






                   ...PETITIONER

    (BY MR. R.L. VERMA,
    ADVOCATE VICE MR. PREM
    PAL CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE)

     AND




                              ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:26:03 :::CIS
                                 7



                 1 H.P. STATE COUNCIL
                 FOR CHILD WELFARE
                 CRAIG GARDEN, SHIMLA
                 THROUGH ITS GENERAL




                                                           .
                 SECRETARY.





                 2.   THE    PRINCIPAL,
                 ANGANWADI    WORKERS





                 TRAINING       CENTRE,
                 WORKING         WOMEN
                 HOSTEL,   JAIL   ROAD,
                 MANDI, H.P.




                            ...RESPONDENTS

    (BY MR. ANUJ BALI, VICE MS.
    SUSHMA SHARMA, ADVOCATE

    FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1 AND

    MR.     PEEYUSH      VERMA,
    ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENT
    NO. 2)



                  This petition coming on for admission this day,




    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J passed the





    following:

                  ORDER

The petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar at

Anganwadi Worker Training Centre, working women hostel,

jail Road Mandi and accordingly joined as such on

18.5.2017. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his resignation

to be effected from 3.8.2017. Accordingly, the respondent

accepted the same vide office order dated 9.8.2017 and

aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the instant petition

.

for the grant of following substantive relief(s):

"a) Quash the impugned order dated 9.8.2017 (Annexure A­1) being arbitrary, malafide and illegal;

b) Direct the respondents to consider the applicant in service for all purposes and intents with all consequential benefits from the date of acceptance of illegal resignation vide (Annexure A­1).

c) Direct the respondents to consider the posting of the applicant to any of three vacant places in the given facts and circumstances of the case;

2. According to the petitioner, resignation could

not have been accepted, more particularly, when the same

had already been withdrawn at an earlier point of time. It is

next contended that respondents were required to pass a

speaking order before acting upon the representation of the

petitioner regarding his resignation.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties

and gone through the documents and material placed on

record.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy, one

needs to understand the meaning of resignation. In legal

parlance, resignation means a spontaneous relinquishment

of one's own rights. In relation to an office, resignation

connotes the act of giving up or relinquishing the office.

Generally, resignation to get its full effect should be

.

unconditional.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case

of "Srikantha S.M. versus Bharath Earth Movers Ltd.",

(2005) 8 SCC, Supreme Court Cases, 314 has defined

resignation in legal parlance and the same is found in para­

12 of the judgment (supra), which reads as under.

"Now let us consider the controversy on merits. The term

"resignation" has not been defined in the Service Rules. According to the dictionary meaning, however, "resignation"

means spontaneous relinquishment of one's own right. It is conveyed by the Latin maxim Resignatio est juris propii spontanea refutatio. (Resignation is a spontaneous

relinquishment of one's own right). In relation to an office, resignation connotes the act of giving up or relinquishing the office. "To relinquish an office" means "to cease to hold office" or

"to lose hold of the office" implies to detach", "unfasten", "undo" or "untie" "the binding knot or link" which holds one to the office

and the obligation and privileges that go with it."

6. Adverting to the facts, it would be noticed that letter

dated 27.7.2017, whereby the petitioner submitted his

resignation was conditional only to the effect that this would

come into effect only from 3.8.2017, as is evident from the

letter which is reproduced as under:

उचचत ममधयम दमरम

.

     सस वम मस ,





                            महमसचचव,
                            चह. पपर., रमजय बमल कलयमण पचरषद,
                            चशमलम­2





     चवषय :           इसततफम सवतकमर करनस बमरस I

     महहदयम,

समदर चनवस दन यह हह कत मह रमम लहक पप तपर सव. शपरत चनदर सह न आआ गनवमड़त पपरचशकण ककदपर मआ डत मस चचचकदमर कस पद पर कमयररत हह .

यह हह कत मस रस घर कत पचरचससचतयमआ ठतक न हहनस

सस उपरहकत पद सस इसततफ़म दस नम चमहतम हह कययचक यहमह सस मस रम घर बहपत दरह पड़तम हह । आयस चदन घर मस कपछ न कपछ समसयम घचटत हहतत रहतत हह । मस रत पतनत कम सवमससय भत ठतक नहतआ चल रहम हह . वह बतममर पड़ जमतत हह और मप झस बहपत परस शमनत हह जमतत हह I

इसचलए मप झस बड़स खस द कस समस वप चववश हहकर उपरहकत पद सस इसततफ़म दस नम पड़ रहम हह / अतत आप मस रम इसततफ़म

सवतकमर कर अपनम पपरबआ ध करक । कययचक मह चदनमआक 3.8.2017 कह

छहड़कर चलम जमऊआगम तसम अगर सआ भव हह सकस तह मस रत पपरचतचनयप चकत चशमलम कस आसपमस हत करक I सधनयवमद।

                                          भवदतय,
                                          रमम लहक पप तपर शपरत चनदर
     सस न,
     चदनमआक 27.7.2017              चचकतदमर
                                         आ. पपरचश। ककदपर मआ डतI

7. It is not in dispute that resignation in question was

not accepted prior to 3.8.2017 and came to be accepted

only on 9.8.2017 that too w.e.f. 3.8.2017 (afternoon).

.

8. No doubt the petitioner did forward the registered

letter to the respondents on 7.8.2017 showing his intention

to withdraw his resignation, but the same, even as per the

petitioner, was received in the office of the respondents only

on 10.8.2017, by which time resignation as tendered by the

respondents had already been accepted and had become

effective on and w.e.f. 3.8.2017. The resignation could at

best have been withdrawn prior to the acceptance but once

the same was not withdrawn, it obviously had to be given

effect to by the employer.

8. Even if, taking the case of the petitioner at its

best and even if he was to withdraw the resignation, then he

should have personally approached the respondents, prior

to the respondents having acted upon his request of

resignation. But once the resignation has been accepted

prior to the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of the

resignation, then in such circumstances, he has no one else

to blame, save and except himself.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the

reasons, as stated above, we find no merit in the petition

and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to

.

bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, are also

disposed of.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

(Satyen Vaidya)

Judge December 14, 2021 Kalpana r