- (1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to quash and set aside the order dated 10/2/1993 (Annex.3) passed by the respondents, accepting the resignation tendered by the petitioner on 15/3/1991, as the Account Officer of Controller of Accounts, R.S.E.B. The petitioner has sought direction against the respondents to treat the petitioner in service upto 31/10/2011, as if the order dated 10/2/1993 had never been passed against him, and to pay the consequential benefits relating to promotion and other financial benefits. The petitioner has also sought to restore the Civil Suit being No.363 of 1993, which was dismissed for default by the Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur.
(2.) In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner was in the employment of the respondents as the Accountant. He tendered the resignation on 15/3/1991 as per Annex.1. The said resignation came to be accepted by the respondents as per the order dated 10/2/1993 (Annex.3). It appears that during the period between tendering of resignation by the petitioner and acceptance of the same by the respondents, the petitioner had filed one civil suit being No.363/1993, seeking direction against the respondents for the payment of his salary etc. After passing of the order dated 10/2/1993, the said suit was sought to be amended in the year 1998, whereby challenge was made to the said order dated 10/2/1993 in the suit by making amendment. The said amendment was allowed by the Court as per the order dated 18/1/1999, and the petitioner had filed the amended plaint to which the respondents had filed the amended written statement. It appears that thereafter the proceedings of the suit were going on, however on 13/10/2000, the said suit was dismissed for default by the Court as neither the petitioner nor his Advocate remained present in the Court. The petitioner thereafter filed a restoration application being No.43/2000, seeking restoration of the suit, however the said application came to be dismissed by the Court vide order dated 11/11/2003 (Annex.10). The said order passed in the restoration application was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision petition being No.26/2012 before this Court. In the said revision, the Court has passed the following order on 4/12/2013:- "Mr. Kamlesh Jain, petitioner in person seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to take his remedy as otherwise available in law. The permission sought is granted. The revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for".
(3.) In view of the said order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. It is sought to be submitted by the petitioner appearing party in person that the High Court, while permitting the petitioner to withdraw the revision petition, had granted liberty to take his remedy as otherwise available in law, and hence the petitioner is entitled to file the present petition. According to him after dismissal of the suit, the restoration application was filed by the petitioner, however, the same was wrongly dismissed, and therefore the petitioner should not be rendered remedy-less, in absence of any final adjudication on the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the suit.;