IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18647 of 2010 RAJENDRA PRASAD, SON OF LATE LAXMI PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- SEIKHPURA, PATEL PATH, P.S.- SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTRICT- PATNA :--- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, UDYOG BHAWAM, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA-1. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAM, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA-1. 3. THE CANE OFFICER-CUM-GENERAL MANAGER (HEAD QUARTER), BIHAR STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAM, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA-1. 4. THE INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, SEIKHPURA, PATNA- 800014. 5. THE DIRECTOR, INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, SEIKHPURA, PATNA- 800014. :--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 15.11.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”). 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2010 passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation, Annexure-14, whereunder the resignation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he may be involved in connection with erroneous pay fixation of Sri Rooplal Tiwari. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that pay fixation order of Sri Rooplal Tiwari is dated 26.05.2004 and till date the same has not been revised on the ground that thereunder pay of Sri Rooplal Tiwari was erroneously fixed by the 2 Managing Director of the Corporation, besides petitioner has not been served with any show-cause notice or memo of charge in connection with the erroneous pay fixation of Sri Tiwari yet under the impugned order dated 15.09.2010, Annexure-14 his resignation has been rejected observing that he may be involved in connection with the pay fixation of Sri Rooplal Tiwari. For the present petitioner is serving on deputation in the office of the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as “I.G.I.M.S.”) and is likely to be relieved therefrom in case he fails to submit his relieving certificate from his present employer i.e. the Corporation. Earlier this Court under orders dated 14.07.2010, Annexure-12 had asked the authorities of the Corporation to consider the resignation of the petitioner and if there is nothing adverse against him, his resignation be accepted. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that under the impugned order the resignation of the petitioner has been rejected speculating that he may be involved in erroneous pay fixation of Sri Rooplal Tiwari. The pay of Sri Rooplal Tiwari was fixed by the Managing Director under orders dated 26.05.2004 on the basis of the chart appended therewith, perusal whereof 3 indicates that petitioner is also one of the signatory to the said chart but till date the contents of the order dated 26.05.2004 as also the chart have not yet been revised although more than six years have passed of the pay fixation of Sri Tiwari and meanwhile, petitioner has been granted no objection by the Managing Director of the Corporation to serve at the I.G.I.M.S. on contract basis vide order dated 27.01.2006 and 31.08.2009, Annexures 2 and 3. 3. Having considered the aforementioned submissions coupled with the no objection granted in favour of the petitioner contained in orders dated 27.01.2006 and 31.08.2009, Annexures 2 and 3 as also the fact that till date no show-cause notice or charge-sheet has been served on the petitioner in connection with pay fixation of Sri Rooplal Tiwari, I set aside the order dated 15.09.2010, Annexure-14 and direct the Managing Director to reconsider the matter in the light of the fact that till date no show- cause, charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner in connection with the pay fixation of Sri Rooplal Tiwari as also the no objection contained in office orders dated 27.01.2006 and 31.08.2009, Annexures- 2 and 3, as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt of a copy 4 of this order and until such time no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner for relieving him from his contractual assignment in the I.G.I.M.S. 4. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)