1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6430/2003. : : Shri Chander Vs. Chairman, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. : : Date of Order 1.12.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE MOHAMMAD RAFI Q Mr.Mukesh Agrawal for the petitioner. Mr.Abhishek Sharma for respondent No.1. Mr.V.Lodha for the respondents No.2 to 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by writ-petitioner Shri Chander with the prayer that order passed by the respondents dated 14.8.1995 whereby the petitioner was discharged from service as having resigned and the order dated 31.7.2001 whereby it was conveyed that resignation of the petitioner was accepted and declined to grant him terminal benefits admissible at the time of retirement, be both quashed and set aside. Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is an illiterate person and that originally he entered word 'resignation from service' in the application, but when it was pointed out by the clerk 2 concerned that he had more than 31 years of service which qualified him for grant of pension, therefore, struck out the portion of the application 'resignation' and in its place, mentioned 'voluntary retirement' in his application. Even than the respondents processed his case as if the petitioner wanted to resign from service and forfeited his past service and denied him grant of pension. Learned counsel argued that the respondents have falsely taken defence by stating that the petitioner requested for waiver of the notice period and deposited salary of one month with a view to get his resignation accepted immediately because he would contest the election. It was argued that respondents do not have any rule of one month of notice period and Rule of 244 of Rajasthan Service Rules which was applicable even to the employees of the respondents. Learned counsel also contended that correction in the application on the basis of which petitioner has shown to have resigned was made well before it was processed at the time of its submission before the Government authority and the respondents ought not to thereafter process the case of the petitioner as if he was resigning. The plea of the respondents that this was manipulated by the petitioner in connivance with someone within their staff cannot be accepted because they have not 3 shown what action has taken against anyone for such an alleged misconduct. Learned counsel cited judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Lt. Col. P. S. Bhargava : 1997 SCC (2), 28 and argued that Supreme Court in that case granted benefit of pension even to a person who resigned from service holding that in the absence of any specific rule, such benefits cannot be forfeited. Shri Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Virendra Lodha, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 have opposed the writ petition and argued that real object of the petitioner in resigning and insisting on immediate acceptance of his application was to contest election for the Office of Member, Municipal Council, Reengus. Learned counsel referred to Paras No.1, 4 & 5 of the reply and argued that in these paras of the reply, they have specifically stated that the petitioner actually contested the aforesaid election of Municipal Council in the month of 1995 and was elected as Member of Municipal Council, Reengus, which was duly certified by the Election Officer on 28.8.1995. After acceptance of resignation, the petitioner manipulated with some person of the staff and got the word “Sewa Se Tyag Patra” struck off by writing the as “Swechic Sewa Nivrati”. Learned counsel argued that all through the 4 case of the petitioner was processed as the case of resignation. A reference was made to Annexure-1 dated 14.8.1995 in which the resignation of the petitioner was accepted and it was accepted on the same day because the petitioner insisted even for waiver of the notice period. Learned counsel also referred to Annexure-R/1/1, which is the application for resignation in which it was processed as the case of the resignation which would be evident from endorsement made by Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer. They also relied on second application of the petitioner made on 14.8.1995 informing that he has already deposited salary of one month pursuant to order dated 14.8.1995. The facts aforestated have not been specifically rebutted by the petitioner in the rejoinder (i) that he contested the election to the Office of Member Municipal Council, Reengus, (ii) that he got elected (iii) when he initially applied for resignation, he was required to deposit salary for one month of the notice period and (iii) that his application was for resignation and not for voluntary retirement and (iv) that all authorities processed his application as resignation and eventually accepted same. Even if the respondents have not shown what action they 5 have taken against any of their staff for the subsequent striking out of the word 'resignation' and writing of word 'voluntary retirement' in its place including by not registering the police case, the fact speaks for themselves that the petitioner wanted to contest election and for that he insisted for immediate acceptance of his resignation and for that he also insisted for waiver of the notice period and obviously he deposited notice pay so as to come out of the disqualification attached to him that he was holding an office of profit. Regardless of the fact that what is the notice period for voluntary retirement, a case of resignation has to be treated differently than that of the voluntary retirement. The resignation entails forfeiture of the past service whereas voluntary retirement does not. What respondents have asserted has not been specifically countered even by the petitioner, which clearly proves their version. It leads this Court to hold that the petitioner has not been fair and frank to this Court in seeking the remedy of writ, which is an equitable remedy and has deliberately made false assertion. An act of smart play on the part of a litigant like the present one cannot be tolerated, or no one can be allowed to pollute the purity of fountains of justice. 6 In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.2000/- , which if the petitioner does not deposit with the Rajasthan Legal State Board within a period of two months and does not furnish a proof thereof, separate contempt proceedings be registered against him. (MOHAMMAD RAFI Q)J. A.Arora/ - Item No.15.