IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.834 of 2000 NIRMALA UPADHAYA WIFE OF SRI BAID NATH UPADHAYA, RESIDENT OF E/773, SRI KRISHNAPURI, DISTRICT- PATNA…………………… PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT,PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, NEW SECRETARIAT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, GAYA. 5.THE DISTRICT PROVIDENT FUND OFFICER, GAYA. 6. THE DIRECTOR, GENERAL PROVIDENT FUND, PANT, BHAWAN,5TH FLOOR, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 7. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIRCHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA. ………………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. S.K.Mishra,Advocate. For the State and ors.: Mr. 7 7.9.2010 The order of termination dated 2.8.1999 is under challenge in the present writ application. There is some background before termination order was passed way back in the year 1991. Petitioner came to be transferred to Nawadah but she refused to join on the transferred post for many a years. Ultimately, a departmental proceeding was initiated in the year 1997 wherein opportunity was given to the petitioner but she did not adduce any cogent material or evidence for non-joining the place of posting as well as for not working for more than a decade and half. Another salient fact which emerges is based on a so-called claim of the petitioner having tendered unilateral resignation but its authenticity is highly doubtful. Petitioner filed writ application before this High Court seeking a direction upon the respondent to authorize her retiral dues. What was the basis for demanding a direction for payment of pension etc. is not understood because the 2 petitioner had not reached the age of superannuation and there was no application for voluntarily retirement.Obviously a unilateral resignation could not have been made the basis for demand of retiral dues. In fact the Court takes a view that unilateral resignation by an employee bars an employee to claim pension and other retiral dues under the service rules. Taking advantage of the general directions which used to be issued by the High Court in the retiral dues cases, the case of the petitioner was also disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider her claim for payment of retiral dues. A contempt was filed for non-compliance, it is only then that the respondent authorities discovered fraud played by the petitioner upon the High Court as well as misplaced kind of prayer or demand made in the earlier writ application. In the given background petitioner was held not entitled to payment of any retiral dues.In fact she was an absconder from service right from the year 1981 without any application or authorization. On discovery of such fraud played by her a departmental proceeding was initiated on 2.8.1989. The petitioner has challenged the said order now on the ground that the petitioner is not interested in coming back to the work for her personal reasons and that she should be allowed benefit of pension for the period she has worked with the respondents. This Court has serious reservation against the present writ 3 application and the prayer made therein, in the light of the conduct of the petitioner which have already been taken note of in the earlier part of the order. The order of dismissal which has come to be passed is based on enquiry and finding given therein that too after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner has created the situation for herself and in the above noted circumstance no interference is warranted with the order. In fact petitioner’s conduct deserves to be deprecated. This writ application is dismissed. AnilKr.Sinha (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. )