i .fff-f^^-f^ A)'w/---£sspBy.— ^^^^i^ For ReslStrar, M. P. Steie Adm. Tiitiunal, RAtfVR. BEFORE THE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATWE TRIBUNAL BENCH AT RAIPUR , ^ &;^7i7?3'3'?i-l'^-> O.A.No. of 2000 Dilip Taanl; Son of Hari Lal Bhai Taank Resident of Nitin Engmeering Works, Taank Para, APPLICANT 2. VE RS U S State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Secretary Public Works Depariment, n ^cY-i^^r;. V.'Y^ V&S1 uef -Eiigmeei-^ Public Works Department, Satpuda Bhavan, Bhopal M.P. '^. i'?! 3. Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Raipur M.P. 4. Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Durg Div. No. 1 Disto'ict Durg M.P. RESPONDENTS APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TMBUNAL ACT, 1985 "^iy-Tf \x Bs. ^^ mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) No. 3374 of2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Dilip Taank. VERSUS State ofMadhya Pradesh & Others. SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AgnihotrLJ, Present: SKri V-.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER fORAL) (Passed on 18th day ofFebmary, 2011) 1. Initially, this petition was filed before fhe Madhya Pradesh State Administi'ative Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short 'the Tribunal'} and registered as O.A. No. 847/2000. Thereafter, the case was transferred to this Court on dissolution of the Tribunal and was re-numbered as W.P.(S) No. 3374/2005. 2. The petitioner seeks relief to the extent that since his resignation has not been accepted nor rejected, he is entitled to the amount of G.P.F. and service. 3. The facts, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as work-charged Sub Overseer (Mech.) in the year 1968 (Aimexure A/l). Thereafter, by letter dated 23.05.1979 (Armexure A/2) the petitioner sought resignation by letter to the Engmeer-m- Chief, PWD (B&R), Bhopal. Immediately. On receipt of the resignation letter, the Executive Engineer, E&M Division, PWD (B&R) Raipur, infomied to fhe petitioner to settle the outstanding dues which was to the tune of Rs. 1454.05 vide communication dated 23.06.1979 (Annexure A/3). Thereafter, on 08.10.1979 (Annexure A/4), it was pointed out by the petitioner in his letter ^^;^i^^^s" 57 addressed to the Executive Engineer, E&M Division PWD (B&R) Raipur, fhat reply to the memo dated 23.06.1979 has already been submitted though, neither the contents was mentioned m the letter nor reply, allegedly sent to the Executive Engmeer, has been produced before this Court. After resignation letter, the petitioner remained^away from the duty and submitted a letter dated 16.09.1999 (Annexure A/6), after a period of 20 years, seekmg withdrawal ofhis resignation letter dated 23.05.1979. Thereafter, the petitioner attempted to join fhe service on 16.09.1999 (Annexure A/7) which was declined. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that since the resignatiQn letter of the petitioner was not accepted by the authorities, it may be deemed that the petitioner continued in service and accbrdingly the petitioner is entitled to benefit of service and G.P.F. 5. On the other hand, Shri Dubey, leamed Govemment Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that no action on the resignation letter ofthe petitioner could be taken as the outstanding dues to the tune ofRs. 1454.05 was pendmg and the petitioner was inunediately informed on receipt of his resignation letter to settle the said amount. Further, the petitioner remained absent from duties for about 23 years till he attempted tojoin the service again oa 16.09.1999. Shri Dubey next contends fhat once the notice date has been specified, whether resignation is accepted or not, service of the petitioner comes to an end after completion of one month and the position was also accepted by the petitioner as he had not attempted to join service thereafter for more than 20 years and as ss such, he is not entitled to any benefit and the said period caimot be treated as continuation in service. 6. On perusal of the documents fded by the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner has sent his resignation on 23.05.1979 wherein it is'clegrly stated that the petitioner he relieved ftom the post on completion of one month w.e.f. 29.05.1979 and the petitioner, having accepted the position, remained absent thereafter. It is also not found proved asto whether the petitioner has responded to the letter dated 23.06.1979 (Annexure A/3) whereby he was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1454.05 as outstanding dues. It is further not in dispute that after a period of 20 years, he wrote letter seekingjoining in service, which was not granted. 7. Be that as it may, if the resignation letter was not accepted, the petitioner ought to have continued his duties. The petitioner did not make any effort to join the service and work therein. He accepted the position and abstained from his duties. Even otherwise, ifthe date is notified in the resignation, that would come into effect after a period of one month, the resignation letter is deemed to have been accepted. 8. So far as payment of outstanding dues is concemed, that was for settlement of dues which the petitioner, it appears had deliberately ignored the same. Thus, the attempt of the petitioner after more than 20 years to join the service, was rightly rejected. 9. Reliance of Sbri Sharma on a decision of the Supreme Court in Padubidri Damodar Shenoy v. Indian Airlines Limited & Another , is not relevant in the case on hand as in the said case, regulation (2009)105cc514 B'sL.a'gs ieLisis"'"~ --c'"r''°* 7 3 12(b) and first proviso to (Indian Airiines) Service Regulation for Employees (other than those in the Flying Crew and those in the Aircraft Engineering Departments) clearly provides for acceptance ofresignation letter. In this case, no rules or regulations have been pointed out by fhe petitioner to establish that acceptance of the resignatLon letter is mandatory. 10. The Supreme Court, in Nand Keshwar Prasad v. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. & Others , held as under: "11. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that the law is well settled by this Court in a number of decisions that unless controlled by condition of service or the statutory provisions, the retirement mentioned in the letter ofresignation must take effect from the date mentioned therein and such date cannot be advanced by accepting the resignation from an earlier date when the employee concemed did not intend to retire frQm such earlier date. It has also been held by this Court that it is open to the employee concemed to withdraw letter of resignation before the same becomes effective. 11. Thus, looking into the conduct of fhe petitioner as after one month's notice period was over, he remained absent and he further did not respond to the letter dated 23,06.1979 (Annexure A/3) and also no Rules/Regulations have been pointed out by either party, wherein it is necessary to accept the resignation, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, as prayed in this petition. 12. Accordiugly, fhe writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agmhotri (1998) 5 SCC 461