WP(C) 2701/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Being exasperated by the apathetic indifference of the respondents to his repeat ed pleas seeking his reinstatement in service consequent upon the withdrawal of his resignation offered earlier, the petitioner seeks to invoke the writ jurisdi ction of this Court for succour. 01. I have heard Mr. A.S. Choudhury, Senior Advocate for the petitio ner and Mr. J. Patowary, learned Standing Counsel, Public Works Department, Govt . of Assam (hereinafter for short referred to as the Department) for the Respon dent Nos.1,2,3 and 4. 02. For the order proposed to be passed, it is considered inessentia l to issue formal notice to the respondents. 03. Briefly, stated the facts relevant to be noted are that the peti tioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Department by order dated 23.0 6.2003 and was initially posted at Silchar Road Division, he was subjected to in termittent transfers and was eventually posted in the same capacity at Koklata A ssam House under Guwahati Building Division by order dated 03.03.2005. Accordin g to the petitioner, though he rendered unblemished service thereat, his salar y was withheld without assigning any reason. He has alleged that after bearing with this otherwise, apparently arbitrary and whimsical action of the concerned authorities for over a year, he along his father in the month of September,2006 visited the Office of the Superintendent General Administration, Department, Ass am at Assam House, Kolkata to enquire about the reason for nonpayment of his sal ary. The petitioner has asseverated that not only his query was rudely snubbed, he was openly humiliated. Out of mental anguish and frustration he on 19.09.20 06 submitted his resignation from service vide a letter of the even date address ed to the Commissioner and Special Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Public Works Depar tment, Guwahati. Thereby he requested the aforementioned authority to accept his resignation and to release him at his earliest convenience. Accordingly, by a Notification dated 07.09.2007 issued by the above authority, the petitioner was informed about the acceptance of his resignation with effect from 19.09.2006. H e thereafter, submitted representations before the Chief Minister of the State a nd the Commissioner and Special Secretary, Govt. of Assam, P.W.D. as well explai ning the circumstances under which he had offered to resign from service and pra yed for reinstatement. His prayer having been rejected, he has turned to this C ourt for redress. 04. Mr. Choudhury, has urged that the offer of resignation made by t he petitioner, having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances was involu ntary and rather enforced and thus the, acceptance of the same notwithstanding, the rejection of his prayer for reinstatement is per se unfair, unreasonable and unjust warranting interference of this Court. The learned Senior Counsel, howe ver on being queried could not refer to any legal provision vesting the petition er with any legal right to claim, the relief has sought for. 05. Mr. Patowary, in reply has maintained that as the petitioner’s r esignation, meanwhile has been accepted in the year 2007 with effect from 19.09. 2006 and has with time attained finality, his request for reinstatement in absen ce of any enabling legal provision is misconceived. The concerned respondent au thority having rejected his prayer on a consideration of all relevant aspects, t his Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction of judicial review would not inter vene, he urged. He also sought to reinforce his contention by relying on the de cision of the Apex Court in STATE OF PATIALA v. Phoolpati (2005) 3 SCC 88. 06. The pleadings as well as arguments advanced have been duly atten ded to. That the petitioner had offered his resignation on 19.09.2006 by an app lication to that effect addressed to the appropriate authority of that Departmen t requesting his release at the earliest and that by the Notification dated 07.0 9.2007 his request was accepted w.e.f. 19.09.2006 are matters of record. His pl eaded averments disclose that thereafter, on 12.11.2008 he submitted a represent ation recalling his resignation and his request for reinstatement was declined b y a letter dated 21.03.2009 of the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, P.W.D. (Estt. B), Branch conveying to him that it was impermissible as his resignation had been accepted w.e.f. 19.09.2006. He followed up by submitting a representa tion before the Chief Minister of the State on 18.04.2009, which eventually was also replied to by the aforementioned authority of the Department by his letter dated 25.06.2009 reiterating the stand of the respondents. His next representat ion before the Commissioner, Special Secretary, Govt. of Assam, P.W.D., Dispur s ubmitted on 23.02.2010 having failed to evoke any response, he has approached th is Court. Evidently, therefore, the petitioner was informed as far back as on 2 3.05.2009 that his request for reinstatement cannot be acceded to. 07. As alluded hereinabove, the attention of this Court has not been drawn to any legal provision, whereunder the respondent authorities are obliged to permit the petitioner in the above background of facts to recall his resigna tion and to reinstate him in service. As a matter of fact, in course of the arg uments, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also did not seriously dis pute this proposition. Whatever be the circumstances under which the petitioner had decided to resign from service, his prayer to release him at the earliest wa s acted upon and accordingly the jural relationship between him and the responde nts stood severed on and from 19.09.2006. It is not the petitioner’s contention that his resignation was accepted, either on irrelevant considerations or being actuated by bias or mala fide. There is no reason to infer that the acceptance of his resignation as offered by him was not preceded by the required considera tion of all relevant aspects. In absence of any legal provision entitling the pe titioner to demand reinstatement in service as a upshot of the withdrawal of his resignation after the acceptance thereof by the concerned departmental authorit y, this Court is not inclined to intervene. This view finds support from the on e expressed by the Apex Court in State Bank of Patiala v. Phoolpati(Supra). The petition, in the estimate of this Court lacks in merit and is thus rejected. No costs.