: 1 : wp.1959.1997 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. WRIT PETITION NO.1959 OF 1997 V. Lokeshwara Rao .. Petitioner V/s. The Secretary Somaiya Vidya Mandir & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Ushajee Perry i/b Mihir Desai for Petitioner Mr.K.K. Jadhav for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: NOVEMBER 14, 2011 P.C.: 1. The petitioner came to be appointed in the post of Peon with the Primary section of Respondent No.2 i.e. S.K. Somaiya Vidya Mandir on 14.7.1995 and he belongs to a scheduled caste. This appointment was approved by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 18.10.1995. The Petitioner submitted his resignation on 13.4.1996 on the ground that he was intending to settle down at his native place and he also mentioned that the said letter dated 13.4.1996 be also treated as one month's notice. The petitioner claimed to have withdrawn the resignation letter on 26.5.1996 before the completion of the notice : 2 : wp.1959.1997 period i.e. on 29.5.1996. He reported for duty on 26.5.1996 and continued in service till 5.11.1997 on which date he was told not to report for duty. This oral termination of service as a peon is a subject matter of challenge in the petition. 2. While granting Rule, by a reasoned order dated 3.2.1998, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated and undoubtedly he is continued in the employment of respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the last about 13 years. He has also been paid his regular salary. 3. This Court in the earlier order dated 3.2.1990 noted that the resignation submitted by the petitioner was withdrawn by him before the expiry of the notice period and the headmistress had accepted the said withdrawal letter dated 26.5.1996 and allowed him to join his duties. He continued from 26.5.1996 to 5.11.1997 and he was paid his monthly salary. Thus, there was no basis to terminate his service on the ground that his resignation was accepted or that he could not have withdrawn the resignation by letter dated 26.5.1996. It was noted that there was an endorsement to the effect that the resignation was not accepted. This order passed on 3.2.1998 has received finality and hence, nothing further survives in this petition. At the same time, no fresh material has : 3 : wp.1959.1997 been brought on record pointing out that the petitioner's performance during the last more than 13 years was found to be unsatisfactory. 4. Hence, this petition succeeds and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are at liberty to submit the proposal for reimbursement of salary to Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and Respondent Nos.3 and 4 will have to process the same as per the rules. We also make it clear that it is the responsibility of the management to pay to the petitioner at the first instance and if there are any arrears, they shall be cleared within six weeks from today. 6. Writ to go forthwith. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)