JUDGMENT

S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.:- The appellant, Mr. Pritam Pal Dhingra is a practising Advocate in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, having joined the Bar on 4-2-1979. Earlier to joining the Bar, he was serving in the Army and retired on 23-12-65. Thereafter, he was re-employed in the Defence Accounts Department on 7-2-1966 as U.D.C. (Auditor). On 29-2-76, the appellant served three months notice resignation upon the departmental authorities for the reasons mentioned in the said notice and also requested to pay him the contributory provident fund benefits for his 10 years service though the date of his superannuation in the said post was 30-9-1986. The Department not only refused to accept his resignation but also did not relieve him even after the expiry of three months. According to the appellant, there was neither any departmental enquiry pending nor contemplated against him during those three months i.e. between 29-2-76 and 31-5-76. However, a charge sheet dated 21-12-76 for imposing a major penalty on a complaint by Jt. C.D.A. Vehicle Factory was served on him to which he submitted his written statement. Then he served a final quit notice w.e.f. 8-1-77. Though on the basis of the show cause notice, an enquiry was started, nothing came out of it. Therefore, the appellant moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur by filing Writ Petition M.P. No. 786 of 1978 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sworn on 27-11-78 requesting several prayers inclusive of issuance of directions to the respondent therein (the departmental authorities) to accept his resignation so as to enable him to take any other profession of his liking and to declare the retention of his service against his will after 31-5-1976 as illegal and mala fide and to reimburse pay and allowances for the period of his enforced absence after the expiry of three months notice period etc. The High Court issued show cause notice to the respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition. The respondent No. 3 thereafter accepted the resignation dated 29-2-76 of the appellant w.e.f. 15-1-79 by which time the appellant claims to have completed 31 years of combined military and civil service i.e. from 29-11-47 to 15-1-79. Meanwhile, the departmental enquiry initiated against him was dropped. Then the appellant submitted supplemental applications praying that his resignation should be converted into one of voluntary retirement and that his military services should be counted with civil service and that he should be given all service benefits like pension, gratuity etc. as well as consequential benefits on account of the delay in acceptance of his resignation. Two applications being I.A. No. 908/ 79 and 1. A. No. 4246/ 78 were filed by the appellant, they being one for amendment of the petition and the other for taking some additional grounds. Both applications were allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court comprising of Mr. Justice J. S. Verma (as he then was) and Mr. Justice U. N. Bachawat, as the counsel for the respondents had no objection and granted one week time for incorporating the amendments in the petition. At the request of the counsel for the respondent, Shri R. P. Sinha, the Court granted two weeks time to file the additional return by order dated 16-3-79. The case was listed for further hearing on 2-4-79 on which date the writ petition was dismissed. The appellant then on 16-4-79 moved an application to review the order dated 2-4-79. The application was registered as M.C.C. No. 209 of 1979. This application too was dismissed on 23-4-79 with the following observation:

"The grievance of the petitioner in this review petition is that the writ petition (M.P. No. 786/ 78) was dismissed in motion hearing without hearing the petitioner. The substance of the order dismissing the Writ Petition in motion hearing as stated earlier indicates that this averment made by the petitioner is not correct. We also distinctly recollect that the petitioner was h