VED PAL SINGH Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (P A C )
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
VED PAL SINGH
Deputy Inspector General (P A C )
Click here to view full judgement.
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. -
(1.) THIS writ petition was dismissed for non -prosecution on 10.4.2007. Now a restoration has been filed by the petitioner along with an application for condoning the delay in filing the restoration
(2.) REASONS assigned in the delay condonation application seem to be bona fide. Delay condonation application (CLMA No. 1173 of 2011) is
allowed. Delay in filing the restoration application is condoned.
(3.) REASONS assigned in the restoration application seem to be bona fide. Restoration application (MCC No. 78 of 2011) is allowed. Order
dated 10.4.2007 is hereby recalled. The matter is restored to its
This writ petition was filed by the petitioner way back in the year 1997 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and
consequently under Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act,
2000 it stood transferred to this Court. The issue raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that he was a constable in
40th Battalion (PAC) Haridwar, which is now in the territory of Uttarakhand. On 2.1.1992 he moved an application for his resignation on
the ground that his wife is ill for a considerable period, etc. The
resignation was accepted on 7.1.1992. According to the respondents when
the petitioner had moved the application for resignation, he was called
in the office of the said department by his superior officer who gave him
time to rethink on the subject, but he did not withdraw his resignation
application. Consequently, as it has already been referred above, his
application for resignation was accepted by the competent authority on
7.1.1992. After the resignation was accepted, the petitioner also received his all post retirement dues including gratuity, etc.
Thereafter, after a period of more than 2 years, the petitioner on a
rethought had moved an application on 28.12.1994 to withdraw his
resignation application. This application was rejected on 24.12.1996 on
the ground that his application for resignation has already been
accepted. This Court finds no anomaly in the matter. This position of law
has already been settled by Honble Supreme Court in seminal case of Union
of India Vs. Gopal Chandra Mishra reported in AIR 1978 SC 694 which has
been followed by latest judgments of Honble Supreme Court in J. N.
Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in (1998) 9 SCC 559,
and Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India and another reported in 1987 (Supp.)
SCC 228, holding that once the resignation is accepted it cannot be
withdrawn, and therefore respondents are perfectly justified in rejecting
the application of the petitioner. Since his resignation already stood
accepted he could not have been permitted to withdraw the same. Moreover,
the petitioner had already taken his all post retirement benefits.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.