GHANSHYAM Vs. DELHI METRO RALL CORPORATION
LAWS(DLH)-2007-2-140
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on February 01,2007

GHANSHYAM Appellant
VERSUS
DELHI METRO RALL CORPORATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) GHANSHYAM an employee of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation is aggrieved by the non-acceptance of his resignation from the service by the said organisation, non-sanction of his leave for his absence on 24-9-2006, 25-9-2006, 29-9-2006 and 10-11-2006 to 5-12-2006 and non-release of his salary for the period 1-10-2006 onwards. Hence, this writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner - Ghanshyam joined the Delhi metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) as DSL Mechanic on 28-2-2004. His offer of appointment dated 26-2-2004 contains the terms and conditions of his employment of which clauses 8 and 9 are relevant for the present purpose. They are as under:-8. The minimum Notice period of "three months is required for preferring resignation by employee. However, the Management reserves the right not to accept your resignation if the circumstances so warrant, such as pending/anticipated disciplinary proceedings, exigencies of work or for any other reasons as considered appropriate by the Management. 9. You will by required to execute a bond for Rs. 40,000 (Rupees forty thousand only) to serve this corporation for a minimum period of 3 years (inclusive of the probation period) from the date of joining the services. The condition of 3 years' service is without prejudice to probation period. The power to terminate your services will vest with the management under whose authority your services are placed.
(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he found his job arduous in nature and, therefore, he tendered his resignation on 15-9-2006 with a request that he may be released from service as early as possible by waving the condition of three months notice as contained in clause 8 of the terms of his appointment By a subsequent letter dated 19-9-2006, he requested that he may be released w. e. f. 1-11-2006. The DMRC responded to the letter of resignation on 15-12-2006 by which date the requirement of three months' notice stood met yet it declined to accept his resignation. It took the stand that the petitioner after submitting the resignation had not performed his duty and had remained absent w. e. f. 10-11-2006 onwards and also remained on unauthorised leave on 29-9-2006, 24-9-2006 to 25-9-2006, 3-10-2006 and 16-10-2006. Because of his alleged absence from duty on the said dates it was communicated to him that he had not fulfilled the condition of minimum three months notice. The dmrc further took the stand that in terms of clause 9 of the offer of appointment he was required to serve the organisation for a minimum period of three years and in order to bind him he was suppose to execute a bond for an amount of Rs. 40,000. Therefore, it was also communicated to him that since he had not served the organization for a period of three years he should deposit Rs. 40,000 in iieu of the bond and Rs. 12,020 towards notice pay in lieu of short period notice through a demand draft in favour of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation so that his case for resignation could be processed accordingly.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.