IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 154 of 2010 Samay Singh ……… Appellant. Versus U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun .……. Respondent. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the respondent. Date of Judgment: 18.08.2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) For the reasons indicated below, we decline to admit the appeal. 2. Appellant, a driver employed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, submitted his resignation on 7th May 1987 and withdrew the same on 2nd June 1987. However, on 8th July 1987 his resignation was accepted. On 16th August 1993, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court at Allahabad. In that, having regard to the fact that the resignation was withdrawn before its acceptance, relief was sought for a declaration that the appellant is in continuous service. Amongst many defences to the writ petition, it was contended that in the absence of challenge to the order accepting the resignation, the appellant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. While dealing with the writ petition by the judgment and order under appeal, a learned Single Judge has held that in as much as the resignation was accepted at a time when the resignation stood withdrawn, the order accepting the resignation is of no effect. In the matter of grant of relief to the appellant, the learned Judge noted that there appears to be no logical or reasonable explanation by the appellant, as to the reason why the appellant approached the Court six years after he withdrew the resignation, which was subsequently accepted and, accordingly, refused to give any relief to the appellant pertaining to pay and allowances for the period from 8th July 2 1987 to 17th August 1993. Being aggrieved for non-grant of such relief for the said period, the present appeal has been preferred. 3. Nowhere in the body of the petition, it was averred by the appellant that after tendering the resignation, until the same was purportedly accepted, the appellant discharged duties of driver assigned to him by his employer. That being the situation, the logical conclusion would be that the appellant submitted his resignation and then walked off at his own volition from the work to be assigned to him. True, he withdrew the resignation thereafter, but even after withdrawing the resignation he did not, as there is no averment in the body of the petition, discharge duties assignable to him. The body of the petition does not suggest any plausible reason for the appellant to approach the Court on 17th August 1993, when he had withdrawn his resignation on 2nd June 1987 and the resignation was accepted to the notice and knowledge of the appellant on 8th July 1987. 4. The appeal is, accordingly disposed of. Amit (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 18.08.2010 18.08.2010