IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8031of 2008. Decided on: 10th May, 2010. Mansa Ram. ….. Petitioner. Versus Government of H.P. & anr. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. B.S. Ranjan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner joined the Police service, according to the petitioner in January, 1956 and his number in the Constabulary was 609. He worked at Mahasu District. Then he underwent training in Chamba, Shimla, Chini, Recong Peo and then at Kumarsain. According to the petitioner owing to compelling circumstances of his aged and sickly parents, he had to request for transfer to his native place and in view of compelling circumstances of the acute illness of his parents, he had also unwittingly stated in the request that in case transfer could not be granted, he may be permitted to resign from the service. According to the petitioner for some time, nothing was heard. In the meanwhile, he lost his mother in the year 1967. However, on 1.7.1967, according to the petitioner, he was told that his 2 resignation had been accepted. According to the petitioner, the submission of resignation has to be independently dealt with and not along with the request for transfer. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s resignation had not been duly acted upon and that there are no proceedings whereby the resignation was accepted. Still further it is submitted that the petitioner had been knocking at various doors and running from pillar to post for justice and so far the authorities have not taken any action apparently on account of the fact that the records, in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Shimla were gutted in fire in 1972 and, therefore, it was not possible to verify the truth of the allegations made by the petitioner. Be that as it may. According to the petitioner since the resignation has not been duly acted upon and since there is nothing to show that the resignation was duly accepted, at least he may be given the opportunity to seek for compulsory retirement from service on the very same date. According to the petitioner since he has completed more than 11 years of service, in such circumstances, he should at least get minimum pension. Since the petitioner had not intended to resign from service, on the basis of a vague submission in that regard that in the unlikely event of transfer being not granted which was unwittingly made in view of the compelling circumstances of the aged and sickly parents, the respondents could not have acted upon the request treating the same as due resignation, it is submitted. 3 2. In case the petitioner did not really intend to resign from service, when he was told that his name has been removed from the rolls on 1.7.1967, he should have pursued the matter before the authorities. The Original Application was filed only in the year 2001. We are not quite sure as to whether the petitioner had in fact moved the higher authorities regarding the dispute on the resignation before 1972 when the records in the office of the Superintendent of Police were destroyed by fire. In case the petitioner had no intention to resign from service and in case he was told that his resignation stood accepted, naturally he would have approached the higher authorities at least in 1967-1968. In case the petitioner is able to trace out any such request being made to the higher authorities, be it Government or the higher Police Officers before 1972, the request of the petitioner should be appreciated. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as follows: 3. In case the petitioner had submitted any representation to any higher Police Officer, higher in rank to the Superintendent of Police or before the Government in that regard before 1972, it should be taken that the petitioner’s resignation had not been duly made and accepted and in which case the petitioner should be given an opportunity to seek for voluntary retirement from service. We make it clear that it should be open for the respondents in such circumstances to treat the request of the petitioner as one for retirement from service voluntarily. In the event of the petitioner thus reconstructing his file with reference to 4 the attempts already made by him prior to the fire in 1972, before the other authorities, referred to above, the matter be duly considered for the purpose of at least granting minimum pension to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 10th May, 2010 ( Justice R.B. Misra), (tr) Judge.