WP(C) 5504/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA 1. Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A. Borkotaky, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learne d State counsel. 2. The petitioner who was an employee of the Assam Agro Industries Developm ent Corporation Ltd., a Govt. of Assam undertaking, filed this writ petition on 04.08.2004 assailing the order dated 25.06.2001 by which the resignation tendere d by him from the service of the Corporation was accepted and he was released w. e.f. 30.06.2001 3. When the writ petition was admitted by order dated 06.08.2004, the quest ion of delay and estopel in respect of the impugned order was kept open. 4. The only argument advanced is that the purported resignation tendered by the petitioner cannot be said to be the letter of resignation and that it bein g conditional one, consequently the same construing to be the letter of resigna tion could not have been accepted by the impugned order dated 25.06.2001. At th is stage, it will be appropriate to refer the letter of resignation dated 31.05. 2001 tendered by the petitioner, which is quoted below: To The Managing Director, Assam Agro Industries Corp. Ltd. R.K. Road, Ulubari, Guwahati-7 Through the Area Manager, A.A.I.D.C. Ltd. Silchar. Sub: Prayer for release from service of the Corporation. Ref: My petition No. 144, Dtd. 02.01.2001 Memo No. AAI/KHD/Estt-7/98-2001 dtd. 02.02.2001 Petition No. Nil dtd. 06.02.2001 and Memorandum For the Marketing Manger, A.A.I.D.C. Ltd. Guwahati on this visit to Hailakandi on 09.02.2001. Sir, With reference to the subject and letter Nos. referred above, I have the honour to state that due to non-receipt of Monthly salary, since February, 2000, it is quite impossible from my part to continue the A.A.I.D.C. Sub-Branch Office, Hail akandi regularly and peacefully. So, I like to request you kindly to release me from service of Corporation by paying all receivable dues. As I have no other a lternative but to take another job to same myself and my family from starvation. I hope on receipt of this letter you will provide somebody to take over my char ge. Otherwise, I shall be held responsible for any loss or damage of the Corpora tion property. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- 31.05.2001 Asstt. Branch Manager A.A.I.D.C. Ltd. Hailakandi (Emphasis added) 5. The impugned order was passed thereafter on 25.06.2001 accepting the res ignation from service w.e.f. 30.06.2001. For a ready reference the order dated 2 5.06.2001 is also quoted below: ASSAM AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI ORDER Dtd. 25th June, 2001 No. B(79) 2000/22- The resignation tendered by Shri Abdulllah Laskar (AVO) i/c A .B.M. AAIDC Ltd. Hailakandi Sub-Branch, vide his letter no. No. dated 31.05.2001 is hereby accepted. He may be released from the services of the Corporation on 30th June, 2001 (A.N). Sd/- MANAGING DIRECTOR 6. The petitioner initially joined the service of the Corporation as Mechan ic Grade-III. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Field Officer and posted at Jorhat. Subsequently he was transferred and posted at Hailakandi branch as In -charge, Branch Manager. In paragraph-4 of the writ petition the petitioner has admitted that the financial condition of the Corporation was not sound and acco rdingly there was irregularity in payment of salary to the staff. As the letter of resignation suggests that the petitioner wanted to get himself relieved from the service of the Corporation to take another job. After acceptance of the res ignation tendered by him by the impugned order dated 25.06.2001, the petitioner did nothing and there is no explanation in the writ petition as to whether any g rievance was raised by the petitioner against the said order. 7. In paragraph-6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated about pre paration of statement regarding arrear and current salary of the staff in which purportedly the name of the petitioner was not included. It has further been sta ted that situated thus, he had personally approached the respondent No. 3 for re lease of his outstanding salary. The petitioner has annexed the copy of the rep resentation submitted by him. The same is dated on 02.06.2004 (Annexure- 4(a)). The representation was addressed to the Managing Director, Assam Agro Industrie s Development Corporation Ltd. agitating the grievance relating to non-receipt o f salary since February, 2004. In the representation he also stated that he had tendered resignation. The prayer made in the representation was to release his s alary and to treat him to be in service. 8. It is for the aforesaid reasons the Court was of the opinion that the pr inciple of estopel might operate against the petitioner in not raising any grie vance against the impugned order immediately. The court also noticed that only i nsistence of the petitioner was for payment of salary. Accordingly, while admitt ing the writ petition, both the above aspects of the matter were recorded. 9. There is also no explanation in the writ petition as to why not to speak of approaching this court immediately after the impugned order dated 21.06.2001 , the petitioner also did not make any grievance before the departmental authori ty against the said impugned order. Now coming to the writ court, the petitioner seeks to contend that his conditional resignation could not have been accepted by the respondent Corporation. It will be pertinent to mention here that there w as a time gap of 30 days from the date of tendering resignation till the same wa s accepted by the impugned order dated 25.06.2001 making the same effective from 30.06.2001. In the said period the petitioner did not withdraw his letter of r esignation. 10. Needless to say that the expression ’resignation’ will have to be unders tood in the context in which the same is made use of towards tendering resignati on from service. From the materials on record there is no manner of doubt that t he petitioner wanted to leave his job. As noticed above in the letter of resigna tion, the petitioner himself mentioned about this intention to leave the job to take another one. It is an admitted position that the respondent Corporation was undergoing acute financial crisis and it is not only the petitioner who had suf fered for non receipt of salary, but the entire staff of the Corporation had su ffered for such financial crunch. It is on record that the respondent Corporati on has come to a closure with the Cabinet approval on 22.08.2006. The closure is w.e.f. 31.08.2006. To that effect, notification dated 26.09.2006 has also been issued by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Agricultural Depa rtment. 11. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has placed re liance on three decisions which are : i) William R. Shimray vs. The State of Manipur and ors. reported in 1996 ( 3) GLT 216 ii) Prabha Atri (Dr.) vs. State of U.P. Reported in (2003) 1 SCC 701 iii) P.K. Ramchandra Iyre and ors. vs. Union of India and ors. reported in (1 984) 2 SCC 141 12. On perusal of the said decisions, I am of the considered opinion that no ne of the said decisions are applicable to the fact situation of the present cas e. Needless to say that ratio of a decision will have to be understood in the b ackground of fact situation of each case. 13. In William R. Shimray (supra), the conditional resignation tendered by t he petitioner was accepted after a gap of 10 months and 14 days. By the letter i n question, the petitioner wanted his voluntary retirement from service . Withou t considering the same, the authority treating the same as the letter of resign ation, accepted the same after a time gap of 10 years and 14 days. 14. In Prabha Atri (supra), the Apex Court dealing with the principle relat ing to ’resignation’ held that to construe resignation, it must be unconditiona l and intending to operate as such. In the said case a protest was made by the petitioner involved therein in respect of memo dated 09.01.1999 served on her. The petitioner wrote back in response to such memo that the same was uncalled fo r and should be withdrawn. She also stated that instead of taking lenient view of her illness, the authority opted for punishment on her. With such stipulation the petitioner therein contended that if her stand was not acceptable, she woul d be left with no option than to tender resignation with immediate effect. At th at relevant point of time she was on suspension. When such a letter was accepted , the Apex court held that the letter of resignation was non-existent and thus could not have been accepted. 15. In P.K. Ramchandra Iyre (supra), the Apex court noticing callous and hea rtless attitude of the authority, held that the particular petitioner was a vict im of unfair treatment because he raised a voice of dissent against certain clai ms made by the high-up in the institute. When the protest raised by the petition er fell on deaf ears, out of exasperation he wrote a letter dated 30.05.1970 in which he had stated that the only honourable course left open to him was to resi gn rather. It was one year thereafter the Academic Council of the authority conv ened a meeting on 03.05.1971 and resolved that the services of the petitioner we re not to be utilized as faculty member. 16. None of the aforesaid cases and the findings recorded therein are applic able to the case of the petitioner. The letter of resignation dated 31.05.2001 w ill also have to be understood in the touchstone of subsequent action of the pet itioner. His letter of resignation was accepted by impugned order dated 25.06.2 001 making the same effective from 30.06.2001. There was time gap of 30 days. Th e petitioner did not say anything in between. Since the order was passed on 25.0 6.2001 making the same effective from 30.06.2001, the petitioner could have with drawn the letter of resignation during the period 25.06.2001 to 30.06.2001, but he did not do so. Not only that he kept on waiting till submission of the repres entation dated 02.06.2004 in which he only claimed his salary with vague stateme nt for continuity in service. The representation did not even obliquely refer to the impugned order dated 25.06.2001 by which resignation tendered by him was ac cepted. 17. After long three years of the impugned order the petitioner filed the in stant writ petition without explaining the aforesaid circumstances taking the pl ea that his resignation was conditional. 18. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to accept the plea of t he petitioner. Apart from there being delay and latches the case is also barred by the principle of estopel. 19. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. If the petitioner is still entitled to get arrear salary, the respondents shall look into it and p ay the same as expeditiously as possible. 20. At this stage, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel for the petitio ner submits that since upon closure of the Corporation it is the Agriculture Dep artment who is vested with the power and jurisdiction in the matter, the necessa ry follow up action regarding payment of admissible salary will have to be taken by the said Department. If that be so, the said authority shall take a decision in the matter as per the prevalent scheme and in accordance with rules, dependi ng upon the facts and circumstances involved in the case.