COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 6712/2001 (Old No. 7633/1995) Smt. Neelam Sharma wife of Sri Lalji resident of Mohalla Ramnagar Gali No.11 Police Station Roorke Haridwar. ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. Government of India Ministry of Defence through its Chief Secretary New Delhi. 2. Officer Incharge Records Bengal Engineering Group and Centre Roorki District Haridwar. 3. Station Commander Record Headquarters (BEG) Roorki Haridwar ……Respondents Sri Yogesh Pacholia, holding brief of Sri S.N. Babulkar, Senior Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Vikas Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government. Dated: 13.02.2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the termination order dated 08.08.1987 contained in Annexue-3 to this the petition. By means of the impugned order the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rule, 1965. The impugned order of termination was passed accepting the resignation of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that next to the date of resignation i.e. on 28.07.1987, the petitioner went to the office for withdrawal of her resignation and it was not accepted, then the petitioner sent application for cancellation of her resignation through U.P.C. which is contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 3. A perusal of Annexure-5 shows that the date of U.P.C. to be 30.07.1987 while the application is dated 28.07.1987. There is no evidence on record as to when this U.P.C. was received. Since the order of termination is dated 8th August 1987, had the application, contained in Annexure-5, been received the authority would have considered by giving a second thought. It has not been stated anywhere in the writ petition that order of termination has been passed after receipt of the application for cancellation of the resignation of the petitioner in which it is stated that the applicant could not fulfill the demand of Rs. 10,000/- for regular service, thus the termination order is biased. 4. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 13.02.2008 RBS