IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27522 of 2008 Between: Smt. V. Sailaja, W/o. Sampath Kumar, Hindu, H.no. 8-1-110/111, Vishnu Apartments, Shivaji Nagar, Secunderabad - 500 003. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Central Office, Nariman Point, Mumbai. 2 The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Zonal Office, Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Senior Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Divisional Office, Dargamitta, Nellore. 4 The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Of India, City Branch Office-II, Brindavanam, Nellore. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in accepting the resignation dated 1-4-2008 and releasing the petitioner of terminal benefits as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and direct the respondent to accept the same and settle all the benefits due forthwith together with interest and costs. Counsel for the Petitioner:DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.BATHULA VENKATESWARA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER The writ petitioner joined as an Assistant on 15.1.1978 in the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India, at Gudur, Nellore District. Later, she got promoted as a Grade Assistant and Assistant Administrative Officer in 1995 and 2002 respectively. She applied for casual leave from 19.2.2008 to 22.2.2008. She made a request to the respondents to cancel the casual leave sanctioned to her and in stead to grant privileged leave up to 10th March, 2008 in view of her marriage being on 27.2.2008. She availed leave till 31.3.2008. She submitted resignation on 1.4.2008. Since respondents have not acted upon her resignation letter, she approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 18.12.2008. Respondents filed counter-affidavit. Thereupon, the petitioner placed on record the additional affidavit. Pending the writ petition, the 3rd respondent accepted the resignation of the petitioner. However, the petitioner was informed that she is liable to pay the Corporation as compensation a sum equal to 3 months salary along with dues. The said letter communicated to the petitioner accepting her resignation reads as hereunder: “This has reference to your letter dated 1.4.2008, wherein you have tendered your resignation from the services of the Corporation requesting to accept the resignation with immediate effect. In this connection, we have to inform you that the Competent Authority has accepted your resignation from the services of the Corporation with immediate effect under Regulation 18(1) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 without waiving the balance of Notice Period subject to recovery of all outstanding dues and vacating the staff quarters, if any allotted to you. As per Regulation 18(1) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 on breach of the provisions of this sub- regulation, you are liable to pay the Corporation as compensation a sum equal to 3 months salary along with any other dues to the Corporation such as outstanding Festival Advance, Flood Advance, IEHS loan, Vehicle Advance and all other advances at our Branch Office2, Nellore immediately.” Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted resignation letter on 1.4.2008 and therefore, recovery of three months’ salary as compensation under Regulation 18 (1) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (for short ‘the Regulations’) is not legal and proper. A further submission has been made that the respondents have not yet settled the retirement benefits and therefore, necessary direction is required to be given to the respondents to pay the terminal benefits to the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner did not attend the office after submitting her resignation letter and therefore, the respondents are entitled to recover three months salary in lieu of three months notice. Learned counsel refers to Regulation 18 of the Regulations , which reads as hereunder: “A notice given by an employee under sub- regulation (1) above shall be deemed to be proper only if he remains on duty during the period of the notice and an employee shall not be entitled to set off any leave earned against the period of such notice.” Under Regulation 18(1) , the petitioner has to give three months notice. Indisputably, the petitioner has been on leave since 1.4.2008. Such is the situation, the 3rd respondent is justified in putting the clause with regard to compensation as provided under Regulation 18 (2) of the Regulations. It is the grievance of the petitioner that her retirement benefits are not settled so far. The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to settle her terminal benefits and pay the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. This order does not preclude the writ petitioner from making an application to the respondents to waive the compensation in lieu of notice period. __________ 24-03-2009 rkk