Anju Devi Maurya vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—The petitioner has relied upon a very ancient judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar v. Union of India decided on 18.4.1968. The law with regard to resignation has been explained subsequently in other decisions of the Supreme Court as well as by this Court reference whereof may be found in the case of Mrs. Rabia Sultana v. A.M.U., Aligarh and Ors. 2006 (1) ESC 34 . The Supreme Court in an earlier decision in the case of Moti Ram Vs. Param Dev and another, has held that where resignation does not require any further action then the same is complete after having been submitted by the person tendering the resignation.

The resignation in the present case does not require acceptance as no bilateral act is contemplated.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the absence of rules unless and until the resignation is accepted and intimated to the petitioner, it will be presumed that the petitioner has not resigned.

The decisions referred to hereinabove indicates the law just to the contrary and therefore the aforesaid submission cannot be accepted. The petitioner is a rozgar sewak under the scheme which does not require the acceptance of a resignation. It is open to the petitioner to unilaterally cease and waive his/her right to'' serve as such. The resignation has been tendered voluntarily. It does not require any acceptance and the jural relationship snaps. In such a situation, there is no occasion for the petitioner to withdraw her resignation as contended. The argument cannot be accepted.

The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.