Regular Second Appeal No.2902 of 2006 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 13, 2010 Dr.N.Rajamony through his L.Rs. ...Appellant VERSUS Technical Teachers' Institute, Chandigarh Society, Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Ms.Ekta Thakur, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment passed by Addl.District Judge, Chandigarh. The appellant was in the service of the respondent-Institute for 13 years, 5 months an 19 days w.e.f. 12.4.1974 to 1.10.1987. Thereafter he was relieved. Appellant Regular Second Appeal No.2902 of 2006 (O&M) : 2 : accordingly claims that he was entitled to gratuity, leave encashment w.e.f. 1.10.1987, which amounts to Rs.80,168/-, besides arrears of salary w.e.f. 1.1.1986 alongwith interest. When the respondent did not make any payment despite request, the appellant filed a suit for recovery of this amount and also for recovery of the leave encashment along with interest at the rate of 15% from 1.10.1990. Prayer for recovery of Rs.4,620/- as interest on delayed payment of outstanding arrears of salary was also claimed. Thus, total recovery sought was for Rs.1,20,865/- along with interest. The respondent contested the suit. In the written statement filed, they challenged the locus standi of the appellant to file this suit. It is also stated that he had no cause to file and maintain the suit. Otherwise, it was conceded that appellant was appointed as Lecture. His promotion was also admitted and so also that he was relieved for joining a fresh assignment. It is also stated that lien on the post with the respondent was kept for two years and on the expiry of period of lien, appellant requested for extending that period further for one year, which was granted. After three years, no further extension was permissible under law and accordingly the appellant was advised either to report with the defendant on 1.10.1990 or to resign from the post. The appellant did not reply to the communication. Accordingly, he was taken to have resigned from the post and thereafter the arrears due to him were released to him. Accordingly, the suit claiming the amount was resisted by the respondent. The trial Court decreed the suit. The first Appellate Court, however, has reversed the findings. Counsel for the appellant has Regular Second Appeal No.2902 of 2006 (O&M) : 3 : drawn my attention to the reasons given by the first Appellate Court to reverse this finding. Concededly, there was no resignation submitted by the appellant. He is deemed to have resigned from the post and his entitlement to leave encashment and gratuity is, thus, disputed on this ground. There is no resignation submitted by the appellant. Merely because he failed to join after expiry of lien period, would not mean that he would be deemed to have resigned. At the most, his lien could be terminated and his right to claim back and join the post, thus, would come to an end. By no stretch of imagination, it could be construed that by not joining, he would be deemed to have resigned. Nothing much could be stated on behalf of the counsel for the respondent to dispute this proposition of law. Accordingly, the substantial question of law as to whether the mere ending of a lien period would mean deemed resignation would arise in this case. This position of law cannot be disputed. Accordingly, the view taken by the first Appellate Court cannot be upheld. The judgment passed by the first Appellate Court is, therefore, set-aside. The judgment passed by the trial court is restored. Let the amount due to the appellant be released to him within a period of three months from today. The appeal is accordingly allowed. May 13, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE