AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J.—By making this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who was a District Agriculture Engineer, has approached this Court seeking issuance of appropriate writ/writs commanding the respondents to settle the petitioner''s monetary benefits from the date of acceptance of his resignation from service and make payment of requisite monetary benefits legally due to the petitioner.
The petitioner''s case, briefly stated, is as follows : While the petitioner was serving as a District Agricultural Engineer in the department of Rural Works Department, Arunachal Pradesh, he submitted his resignation from service on 1.9.1983 alleging that he had been illegally superseded. The respondents did not accept the resignation of the petitioner and instead, placed him under suspension vide order, dated 23.4.1984. The order of suspension was followed by framing of Article of Charge vide memorandum, dated 18.2.1985. However, the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was not concluded and the petitioner remained under suspension for six long years till vide order, dated 17.4.1990, his resignation was accepted retrospectively with effect from 1.9.1983, Such an acceptance of resignation is wholly illegal and the respondents should have accepted the resignation of the petitioner with effect from 17.4.1990, i.e., the date on which the resignation was formally accepted. By accepting petitioner''s resignation with retrospective effect, respondents have illegally denied to the petitioner monetary benefits for long six years, when the petitioner had been kept under suspension. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court seeking reliefs as hereinabove indicated.
3.1 have carefully perused the materials on record. I have heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B. L. Singh, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
The respondents have contested this case without filing their affidavit-in-opposition. Hence, the averments of fact made in this writ petition are to be treated as true and correct and this writ petition deserves to be accordingly disposed of.
It is well-settled that resignation offered by a Government employee is ineffective until the time the same is accepted by the competent authority. Viewed from this angle, since the petitioner''s resignation was accepted on 17.9.1990, he must be treated to have remained in service till 17.4.1990. Thus, the petitioner shall be treated to have remained in service between 1.9.1983, i.e., when he submitted his resignation, and 17.4.1990, when his resignation was formally accepted.
What logically follows from the above discussion is that the petitioner is entitled to receive such monetary benefits, which were available to him as a Government employee under suspension between 23.4.1984, when he was placed under suspension, and 17.4.1990, when his resignation was formally accepted. It further logically follows that the petitioner is also entitled to receive such monetary benefits of a regular Government employee as he was entitled to receive till 23.4.1984, when he was placed under suspension. This position is, in fact, not disputed by the learned Senior Govt. Advocate also.
Coupled with the above, it is important to note that the petitioner joined as an Officer on special duty in the Directorate of Agriculture and Community Development, Shillong, vide order dated 14.11.1969 and on 29.1.1971, he was appointed Asstt. Agricultural Engineer in the same scale and cadre under the same department. The petitioner received his promotion as District Agricultural Engineer on 24.8.1976 and in the same capacity, he continued to serve till the time his service stood terminated by acceptance of his resignation letter. The petitioner has, thus, put in more than 20 years of services in the department concerned and he is, therefore, entitled to receive such pensionary benefits, which an employee placed in his position is entitled to receive.
Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety, the respondents are hereby directed to treat that the petitioner''s service stands terminated by his resignation with effect from 17.4.1990 and the petitioner shall be paid, within a period of three months from today, all his dues in terms of the observations made hereinabove.
This writ petition shall stand disposed of in terms of the above directions.
No order as to costs.