ANIL DEV SINGH, CJ. - (1.) By this appeal the appellant questions the orders passed by the learned single Judge dated July 27, 2001 and November 9, 2001.
(2.) The facts lie in a narrow compass. The appellant was serving as Senior Assistant in the respondent Corporation. On January 8, 2001, the appellant, by means of an application, sought voluntary retirement with effect from March 31, 2001 on the ground of his ill health and domestic problems. The application of the appellant was allowed by the respondent vide its order dated February 7, 2001 and the appellant was permitted to retire with effect from April 7, 2001. The appellant, however, on April 4, 2001 moved an application before the respondent withdrawing his offer of voluntary retirement for the reasons that he has recovered from his ill health. The respondent, however, rejected the application of the appellant inter alia for the reason that the appellant did not file any medical certificate in support of his claim of having recovered from his ill health. Thereafter, the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3598/2001. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned single Judge observed that the appellant ought to have approached the respondent Corporation by filing a representation rather than directly coming before this Court by means of the writ petition. The learned single Judge, accordingly dismissed the writ petition with the following order: "However, the petitioner is free to file a detailed representation for these grievances to the Chairman cum Managing Director of the Corporation in the matter and if such a representation is made by the petitioner, the Chairman cum Managing Director of the Corporation shall decide the same in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt thereof and a certified copy of this order which is to be filed by the petitioner. In case the grievance of the petitioner is not acceptable, a reasoned order be passed, a copy of the same be sent to the petitioner by registered post A.D. In case where on the representation order goes adverse to the petitioner the petitioner is free to apply for the revival of this petition by filing a simple note."
(3.) After dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant moved a representation before the respondent in consonance with the order of the learned single Judge. In the representation, it was inter alia stated that the appellant had applied for voluntary retirement on the ground of his failing health, but now he has regained the same and, therefore, he should be allowed to join service and his application withdrawing his earlier application for voluntary retirement be allowed. The Chairman of the respondent Corporation rejected the representation for the reason that the appellant had not submitted a medical certificate testifying to the claim that he had regained his health. Thereupon, the appellant filed an application for revival of the writ petition. The learned single Judge, on consideration of the matter, by order dated November 9, 2001, dismissed the application. The learned single Judge while dismissing the application noted that it was admitted by the appellant in the application for voluntary retirement that he was ill and was unable to work properly. the learned single Judge also noted that the appellant had stated in the application that his eye sight was weak and he was unable to recognize the words and he could recognize words only by guess work. The learned single Judge also considered the fact that no medical evidence was produced before the respondent Corporation which could support the claim of the appellant that he was no longer ill. In the circumstances, the learned single Judge was of the view that no relief could be granted to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned single Judge, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.;