THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.8822 of 1998 Dated:19.09.2007 Between K.Usha Kalyani ..Petitioner and 1.The Secretary, Social Welfare Residential School Society, P.S. Nagar, Near Masab Tank, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.8822 of 1998 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to accept the petitioner’s resignation from the date of offering i.e., 13.11.1989 instead of 1.7.1989 and to declare the order in RC No. Z-III/4089/96 dated 31.12.1997 of the Secretary APSWREIS, Hyderabad as arbitrary and illegal and violative of R.30 (a) (ii) of the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to enjoy the annual increments in the revised pay scales and fixation of her basic salary on the date of her technical resignation and also to pay terminal benefits, arrears of salary along with Maternity and Earned leave salary. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as a Teacher in Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential School for girls at Muthukur in Nellore District on 6.8.1986 and her services were regularized with effect from 6.8.1986 vide order dated 24.4.1993 and she also completed her probation period by 6.8.1988. It seems that the petitioner has applied for maternity leave for three months from 1.7.1989 to 27.9.1989. After completion of the maternity leave, she reported for duty on 28.9.1989 to the Principal, Social Welfare Residential School for girls. She attended duty from 28.9.1989 to 14.10.1989. However, in view of post operative infection, she needed rest and treatment for a period of one month. As per the advise of the doctors, she applied for leave and ultimately submitted her resignation due to ill health and domestic problems on 13.11.1989. While that being so, the respondents instead of accepting her resignation from 13.11.1989, it was accepted with effect from 1.7.1989 the date on which she went for three months maternity leave. The period from 1.7.1989 to 13.11.1989 was wiped out for the purpose of salary and other benefits. Therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner went on maternity leave for three months from 1.7.1989 to 27.9.1989, which is a matter of right. Thereafter, she joined duty, worked for some time and applied leave for another one month and submitted resignation on 13.11.1989, therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be set aside. Though no counter is filed, Mr.K.Durga Prasad, learned standing counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner could not have availed medical leave and hoodwinked the department by attending for some days and then sending resignation. This is nothing but the petitioner misused the provisions of law. Therefore, the respondents have rightly accepted her resignation from 1.7.1989 and from that date onwards practically the petitioner did not work in the department. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. The impugned order does not furnish any reasons whatsoever. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner in fact submitted medical certificate on 25.6.1989 advising her to take maternity leave with effect from 1.7.1989. She also submitted medical certificate dated 26.9.1989 to show that she was fit to attend duty. She has applied another medical leave on 14.10.1989 on the ground that she was ill. Simply because of the reason that the petitioner availed three months maternity leave and joined on 28.9.1989 and worked up to 14.10.1989 and again went on leave and ultimately resigned on 13.11.1989, it does not mean that the petitioner is not entitled for the maternity leave and other benefits till the date of her resignation i.e., 13.11.1989, as per law. The petitioner resigned on 13.11.1989 and ultimately she worked about a month between 28.9.1989 and 13.11.1989 that does not mean that the resignation of the petitioner can be accepted from retrospective date 1.7.1989. In fact accepting the resignation with retrospective effect itself is illegal. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned action of the respondents in accepting the resignation of the petitioner from 1.7.1989 instead of 13.11.1989 is atrocious and illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed the impugned order is set aside. Further, it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits from 1.7.1989 till 13.11.1989 for payment of regular salary, leave encashment, medical leave and gratuity etc., as per her eligibility. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _________ 19-09-2007 rkk