I.A. Ansari, J. - (1.) (Oral)- Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. H. Rahman, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents. Also heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel, who has appeared as amicus curiae.
(2.) The controversy raised in this writ petition and the backdrop of the facts and pleadings thereof, which are required to be considered for effective disposal of this writ petition, lies, in a narrow compass, and can be described, thus: (i) While working in the rank of Deputy Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, at Guwahati, a letter was issued, on 04.09.2002, by the Deputy General Manager (i/c), East Zone of the said Corporation, informing the petitioner that he was, on lateral basis, re-assigned and posted as Executive Operations Officer, Calcutta Terminals, and that his reassignment shall be effective from the date he assumes charge as the Executive Operations Officer, Calcutta Terminals. Following the order of his posting to Calcutta, as indicated hereinbefore, the petitioner submitted, on 19.10.2002, addressed to the Chief Installation Manager, Kolkata Terminals of the said Corporation, a letter tendering his resignation from service with immediate effect. By letter dated 18.06.2003, the respondent Corporation informed the petitioner that acceptance of the petitioner's resignation and his release from employment would be allowed by the respondent Corporation only after the dues, quantified in the said letter, which amounted to a sum of Rs. 4,63,974/- along with penal interest @ 12% was paid by the petitioner. On 14.07.2004, the respondent Corporation floated a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). Considering himself as a person covered by the said scheme and eligible to opt for VRS, the petitioner submitted, on 30.08.2004, an application withdrawing his resignation and requesting the respondent Corporation to consider his case under the said scheme. By a letter, dated 21.09.2004, the respondent Corporation informed the petitioner that his application seeking benefit of VRS was not acceptable to the respondent Corporation. This order, dated 21.09.2004, whereby the petitioner's request for allowing him to avail the benefit of VRS had been declined, came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of a writ petition, which gave rise to WP(C) 7022/2005. During pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent Corporation instituted Money Suit No. 87/2007 seeking decree of recovery an amount of Rs. 12,91,856.26 with interest. (ii) Before, however, the said suit was instituted, the petitioner, on 29.11.2006, submitted a letter to the General Manager (East Zone), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Calcutta, stating to the effect, inter alia, that since his resignation had not been accepted by the management, he was facing great difficulties and, therefore, he was withdrawing his resignation with immediate effect and reporting for duty. Closely following his letter, dated 29.11.2006, the petitioner submitted his joining report, on 18.12.2006, addressed to the General Manager (East Zone), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., undertaking to withdraw the Writ Petition No. 7022/2005 aforementioned, but the petitioner was not allowed to join his duty. The said writ petition was, eventually, disposed of, on 10.01.2007, on the same having been withdrawn by the petitioner and, on 10.01.2007 itself, the petitioner submitted an application addressed to the General Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Calcutta, requesting him to allow the petitioner to join duty. As the respondent Corporation did not allow the petitioner to join duty, the petitioner is, now, before this Court seeking, with the help of the present writ application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issuance of appropriate Writ(s) commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to join his duty.
(3.) The respondent Corporation has resisted the writ petition by filing an affidavit, wherein the respondent Corporation has contended, inter alia, that the relationship of employer and employee, which once existed between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation, had been broken by the petitioner by abandoning his service after submitting his resignation and, since the petitioner was no longer on the active roll of the respondent Corporation, the petitioner is not entitled to rejoin his post or employment under the respondent Corporation.;