D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner had submitted a resignation letter on 19th December, 1992 and another on 26th February, 1993. According to Mr. G.C. Gehrana these two resignation letters were conditional resignations in terms of Paragraph 218 of the Hydel Manual. The petitioner contends that he had learnt from the newspaper report that the resignation has been accepted, but according to Mr. Gehrana the conditions for the resignation were not redressed. According to him without redressal of the grievance there cannot be acceptance of any resignation. If the resignation is conditional in that event it has to be accepted alongwith the conditions and not without it. Therefore, according to him the order dated 29th March, 2000 on which the resignation was accepted cannot be sustained. He then contends that paragraph 218 provides for appeal. The alleged redressal of his grievance and acceptance of resignation being simultaneous, the petitioner is deprived of his right of appeal, since according to him on account of acceptance of his resignation the petitioner is no more an employee of the department and is not eligible to prefer an appeal. According to him there should have been time gap in order to enable the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the resignation is accepted. He then contends that acceptance of resignation is mala fide inasmuch as the petitioner was transferred but he was not paid his salary for long seven months, therefore, he had asked for payment of salary and transfer allowance in advance so as to enable him to join the transferred post. Subsequently, however, certain payments were made and transfer allowance were allowed and as soon as the petitioner was preparing to go on transfer his resignation was accepted. Thus, it appears that the order dated 29th March, 2000 is in fact a penalty and in disquise effecting a termination in the guise of acceptance of resignation. He further contends that the manner in which his grievances were sought to be redressed also reflects the mala fide on the part of the respondents. He further points out that on merit the orders to deal with the grievance of the petitioner are incorrect, arbitrary and against the principle of law. Therefore, the entire process was only a show emulating from bias on the part of the respondents. According to him it has affected his legal right which he can enforce through writ jurisdiction, when the statutory authority has acted in violation of statutory responsibility as well as in violation of the statutory provisions, namely paragraph 218 of the Manual. He further contends that unless the conditions are redressed, the authority concerned had no jurisdiction to accept the resignation. In case the resignation is not accepted in that event the petitioner had a right of appeal or to tender unconditional resignation himself.
(2.) Paragraph 218 does not empower the authority to accept the resignation without redressing the grievance. The redress meant for in paragraph 218 is actual redress and not a show of redress. On this ground he prays that the reliefs sought for in the writ petition should be allowed.
(3.) Mr. S.P. Mehrotra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand points out that the petitioner was absenting from his duties right from 19th December, 1992 till 20th February, 1995 and that after he was transferred he did not join the transferred post on one way or the other and in fact he absented himself from duties for which he was not entitled to any payment of salary. He further contends that the question which is being sought to be espoused through this writ petition refers to the redressal of the grievance with regard to the payment of salary fixation of scale and other consequential benefits which is available to him in service. These matters are already the subject matter of the proceedings before the Public Service Tribunal which is still pending. The petitioner for the same relief had moved writ petition No. 30434 of 1993, which was disposed of on 10th January, 1994, whereby it was held that the relief with regard to the salary from December, 1992 onward after revision of pay in the revised scale was subject matter of the procedings pending before the Public Service Tribunal, therefore, the arrears if any due to the petitioner may be claimed by him in his claim petition before the Public Service Tribunal and that the writ petition cannot be maintained in this Court so far as that relief is concerned. Therefore, according to him the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition after decision dated 10.1.1994 contained in Annexure 4. He further contends that by reason of the ultimate order passed in the said decision the Board was directed to accept petitioner's resignation if no disciplinary proceeding is pending against him. According to him the condition of acceptance of resignation was complete if no disciplinary proceeding was pending and the form of the order that was passed appears mandatory which has not been challenged by the petitioner. The second part of the order is not condition for acceptance of the resignation. The second part is a direction the Board to examine the grievance raised by the petitioner in his application date 3rd June, 1992, 19th December, 1992 as well as those in his letter of resignation dated 26th February, 1993. Therefore, according to him the petitioner cannot make out any grievance if his resignation is accepted and grievances are examined simultaneously. According to him in that event the petitioner may prefer an appeal. He further contends that it would make no difference if his resignation is accepted and if the petitioner is so aggrieved he may tender unconditional resignation in terms of paragraph 218 of the Manual. He also contends that the petitioner also filed Writ Petition No. 4057 of 2000. The said writ petition is still pending while the respondents were directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner regarding payment of salary. According to Mr. Mehrotra, some various amounts were paid to the petitioner on advance date which is apparent from the record. Mr. Mehrotra also contends that the petitioner moved another writ petition being Writ Petition No. 3303 of 1993 before the Lucknow Bench which was dismissed on 27th April, 1993 against the order of transfer. The petitioner had filed another writ petition being Writ Petition No. 37239 of 1999 since been disposed of on 1st September, 1999 a copy where or is annexed Annexure 9 to the writ petition by which the respondents were directed to take decision upon the representation of the petitioner which was made by him on 13th July, 1999. Pursuant to the order dated 1st September, 1999 petitioner's representation was decided by order dated 29th March, 2000 which is Annexure 14 to this writ petition. The question of examination of the grievance of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 10.1.94 was also disposed of on the same date 29th March, 2000 which is Annexure 15 to this writ petition and the resignation was accepted in terms thereof with immediate effect namely from 29th March, 2000. Thus, according to him there is no infirmity in the whole process and the petitioner cannot claim any benefit out of the present proceedings.;