WP(C) 330/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. H. Rahman, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents. Also heard Mr . M. Dutta, learned counsel, who has appeared as amicus curiae. 2. The controversy raised in this writ petition and the backdrop of the fac ts and pleadings thereof, which are required to be considered for effective disp osal of this writ petition, lies, in a narrow compass, and can be described, thu s: (i) While working in the rank of Deputy Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corpora tion Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, at Guwahati, a le tter was issued, on 04.09.2002, by the Deputy General Manager (i/c), East Zone o f the said Corporation, informing the petitioner that he was, on lateral basis, re-assigned and posted as Executive Operations Officer, Calcutta Terminals, and that his reassignment shall be effective from the date he assumes charge as the Executive Operations Officer, Calcutta Terminals. Following the order of his po sting to Calcutta, as indicated hereinbefore, the petitioner submitted, on 19.10 .2002, addressed to the Chief Installation Manager, Kolkata Terminals of the sai d Corporation, a letter tendering his resignation from service with immediate ef fect. By letter dated 18.06.2003, the respondent Corporation informed the petit ioner that acceptance of the petitioner’s resignation and his release from emplo yment would be allowed by the respondent Corporation only after the dues, quanti fied in the said letter, which amounted to a sum of Rs. 4,63,974/- along with pe nal interest @ 12% was paid by the petitioner. On 14.07.2004, the respondent C orporation floated a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). Considering himself as a person covered by the said scheme and eligible to opt for VRS, the petitioner submitted, on 30.08.2004, an application withdrawing his resignation and request ing the respondent Corporation to consider his case under the said scheme. By a letter, dated 21.09.2004, the respondent Corporation informed the petitioner th at his application seeking benefit of VRS was not acceptable to the respondent C orporation. This order, dated 21.09.2004, whereby the petitioner’s request for allowing him to avail the benefit of VRS had been declined, came to be challenge d by the petitioner by way of a writ petition, which gave rise to WP(C) 7022/200 5. During pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent Corporation instit uted Money Suit No. 87/2007 seeking decree of recovery an amount of Rs. 12,91,8 56.26 with interest. (ii) Before, however, the said suit was instituted, the petitioner, on 29.11. 2006, submitted a letter to the General Manager (East Zone), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Calcutta, stating to the effect, inter alia, that since his r esignation had not been accepted by the management, he was facing great difficul ties and, therefore, he was withdrawing his resignation with immediate effect an d reporting for duty. Closely following his letter, dated 29.11.2006, the petit ioner submitted his joining report, on 18.12.2006, addressed to the General Mana ger (East Zone), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., undertaking to withdraw t he Writ Petition No. 7022/2005 aforementioned, but the petitioner was not allowe d to join his duty. The said writ petition was, eventually, disposed of, on 10. 01.2007, on the same having been withdrawn by the petitioner and, on 10.01.2007 itself, the petitioner submitted an application addressed to the General Manager , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Calcutta, requesting him to allow the pe titioner to join duty. As the respondent Corporation did not allow the petition er to join duty, the petitioner is, now, before this Court seeking, with the hel p of the present writ application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issuance of appropriate Writ(s) commanding the respondents to allow the p etitioner to join his duty. 3. The respondent Corporation has resisted the writ petition by filing an a ffidavit, wherein the respondent Corporation has contended, inter alia, that th e relationship of emplower and employee, which once existed between the petition er and the respondent Corporation, had been broken by the petitioner by abandoni ng his service after submitting his resignation and, since the petitioner was no longer on the active roll of the respondent Corporation, the petitioner is not entitled to rejoin his post or employment under the respondent Corporation. 4. While considering the present writ petition, what needs to be pointed ou t is that the fact that the respondent Corporation is amenable to the writ juris diction under Article 226 has not been in dispute in this writ petition. What i s, now, pertinent to note is that the terms and conditions of employment are ess entially a matter of agreement between the parties concerned. In the case of, h owever, a government employee, a person, on his appointment, acquires a status a nd this status is controlled by such terms and conditions as the government may decide. In the present case too, the terms and conditions of employment, which the respondent Corporation has and follows, would govern the outcome of this wri t petition. The personnel manual of the respondent Corporation, as regards resi gnation by their employees, states as under: 11.1 (iii) Resignation: (a) Under no circumstances will the resignation of an officer whose conduct is under investigation be accepted, if tendered without the sanction of the auth ority competent to dismiss him. (b) In all cases, a regular officer resigning from the services of the Corpo ration is required to given 30 days notice or pay 30 days salary in lieu of noti ce period under the present terms of appointment or as specified. (c) Resignations are accepted by the competent authorities as indicated belo w: Grades Authority A Functional GM with GM - HRD B, C, D Functional Director with Director (HR). E, F, G Recommended by Functional Director with Director (HR), Accepted by C&MD. H & above Board of Directors. After obtaining clearance from functional GM and GM-HRD. Before processing the resignation of an officer, it must be ensured that all out standings to his account are cleared. It is also necessary ensure that he vacat es corporation accommodation, if any, and hands over possession of Corporation p roperty to be immediate Supervisor/Competent Authority on acceptance of his resi gnation. 5. From a minute reading of what the personnel manual contains with regard to resignation by the respondent Corporation’s employees, it becomes clear that according to the terms and conditions of employment, which the respondent Corpor ation has with its employees, the resignation tendered by an employee needs to b e accepted by the competent authority before the employee’s resignation from his post becomes effective. It is, otherwise, also well settled principle that the resignation tendered by an employee is ineffective until and unless the same is accepted by the authority concerned. In the present case, the letter, dated 18 .06.2003, aforementioned, which the respondent Corporation had issued, makes it clear that the respondent Corporation refused to accept the petitioner’s resigna tion until the time the dues, as had been quantified by the respondent Corporati on, was paid. The respondent Corporation has not been able to place any materia l on record to show that the petitioner’s resignation was accepted by the respon dent Corporation. Though the petitioner, in his letter, dated 19.10.2002, afore mentioned, had stated to the effect that he was resigning with immediate effect, the fact remains that this resignation, in order to become effective, required acceptance by the respondent Corporation. Such acceptance having not been accor ded by the respondent Corporation, the petitioner’s resignation from service nev er came into effect. In such circumstances, when the petitioner submitted, vide his letter, dated 29.11.2006, that he was withdrawing his resignation with imme diately effect, the respondent Corporation ought to have allowed the petitioner to report for duty. It is not material as to whether the petitioner’s name figu res in the roll of the respondent Corporation or not; what is material is as to whether the petitioner’s resignation was accepted, at any point of time, by the respondent Corporation. Having not accepted the resignation tendered by the pet itioner, the respondent Corporation has carried the burden of the petitioner as its employee and the respondent Corporation cannot, now, wriggle out of such a s ituation by contending to the effect that the petitioner had abandoned his servi ce. 6. What emerges from the above discussion is that the petitioner has remain ed in service of the respondent Corporation till date. The question, as to whet her the respondent Corporation is or is not liable to pay the petitioner the wag es for the period during which the petitioner had not worked for the respondent Corporation, is a question, which is required to be decided by the respondent C orporation. If the respondent Corporation decides not to pay to the petitioner his salary and allowances for the period during which the petitioner had not wor ked for the respondent Corporation and if the petitioner feels aggrieved by any such decision, it shall remain open for the petitioner to take recourse to such provisions of law as may be permissible. At the same time, the respondent Corpo ration shall also remain at liberty to take such action, disciplinary or otherwi se, which the respondent Corporation may be entitled to take, on the ground that the petitioner, after submitting his resignation, remained away from his post e ven without his resignation having been accepted by the competent authority of t he respondent Corporation. 7. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall sta nd disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the parties are left to bear their own cost.