1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION [Z] NO.344/2011 IN L.P.A.ST.NO. 2230/2011 IN W.P. No. 4660/2008. Bhaskar Rajaram Bajad -VERSUS- Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 08, 2011. Heard Shri Amol Deshpande, learned Counsel for the applicant and Smt. Joshi, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1, 5 and 6. None for respondent nos. 2 to 4, though served. Prayer is, to condone delay of 5 days in filing Letters Patent Appeal. Learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondents is opposing the prayer. We have perused the application which is supported by affidavit. As we do not see any malafides, delay is condoned. Civil Application is accordingly allowed. …..... 2 L.P.A.No. /2011. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Contention is, though resignation was accepted on 08.12.2006, the appellant was permitted to work till 28.02.2007 and this constitutes waiver of that resignation by conduct. It is further pointed out that before 28.02.2007 resignation was withdrawn by serving a legal notice dated 27.02.2007. Perusal of records show that resignation was tendered on 28.11.2006 and the appellant was informed that as it was not a 3 months notice, he has to deposit 3 months wages. The said communication is dated 08.12.2006 and the appellant did not deposit that amount. Learned Counsel states that said amount was deposited on 06.01.2007. Notice on which the appellant is placing reliance sent by his Advocate on 27.02.2007 asserts that it was not obligatory on the appellant to deposit that amount and also contains an assertion that no such amount is deposited by the appellant. It is obvious that said resignation therefore, has to come into effect after three months and 3 accordingly on 28.02.2007 the resignation came into force. There is nothing on record to show that legal notice dated 27.02.2007 was received by the employer before 28.02.2007. Learned Single Judge of this Court has specifically found that the appellant wanted to avoid the departmental inquiry and, therefore, submitted his resignation. We do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity in the matter. Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd