- (1.) The controversy here is with regard to the validity of the withdrawal of resignation from service and the consequences thereof.
(2.) To give the relevant factual background, on October 13, 1982, Pukh Raj Mantri was appointed Manager (Cotton). This appointment was permanent in nature, but it provided for one year's probation. He thereafter took up this appointment, but on July 30, 1983, he tendered his resignation, which was accepted by the Managing Director by his letter of August 3, 1983, wherein it was said that the resignation would be effective from the date when he (Pukh Raj Mantri) is relieved of his post. It was further added that he would be relieved as soon as suitable arrangements are made in his place. Just three days later, however, that is, on August 6, 1983, Pukh Raj Mantri withdrew his resignation. The appellant Federation, however, disregarded the withdrawal of his resignation and proceeded to advertise the post in the newspapers of August 21, 1983. The respondent was eventually relieved from his post on October 18, 1983 and this is what led to the filing of the present writ petition by him seeking reinstatement in service and back wages.
(3.) The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition of the respondent and directed the appellant Federation to treat his resignation to have been lawfully withdrawn and consequently his services to be taken to be continuous for all purposes except payment to him of arrears of salary. The respondent was directed to be permitted to resume his duty within 15 days of the presentation of a certified copy of the judgment and to be paid his salary with effect from the date thereof. Both the appellant Federation and the respondent now seek to challenge this order in Special Appeal.;