U.C.Sharma, J.

1. This is the defendants appeal against the judgment and decree dated the 15.03.1975, passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Patna, decreeing the plaintiffs suit for declaration that the letter of acceptance of resignation dated the 17.09.1966 issued by the defendant No. 2 was mala fide, premature, without jurisdiction illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff and that he still continues in service.

2. The undisputed facts in this case are that the plaintiff was appointed as an Assistant in Class III service under defendant No. 5, the Life Insurance Corporation of India on the 17th of August, 1957. On the expiry of probationery period he was confirmed in the post. At the relevant time while the plaintiff was posted at Giridih under the Assistant Branch Manager (defendant No.l) the plaintiff filed an application before him on the 12th of September, 1966 praying for leave on medical grounds from the 10th of September, 1966 of the 30th of September 1966 and expressed therein his intention to resign from the service in case he would not be in a position to resume his duties after the 30th of September, 1966 on account of his illness or for some other family reasons. The defendant No, 1 called for a medical certificate for considering the leave application and forwarded a copy of the application to defendant No. 2 for his attention. Defendant No. 2 under his letter dated the 17th of September, 1966 intimated the plaintiff that his resignation had been accepted with effect from the 12th of September, 1966.

2a. The case of the plaintiff is that on the 1st of October, 1966 he went to resume his duties, but he was not allowed to join by defendant No. 1 on the ground that his resignation had been accepted by the defendant No. 2. It was stated that on receipt of the letter dated the 17th of September, 1966 the plaintiff lapsed into mental imbalance necessitating his hospitalisation in Kanke Mental Hospital. The plaintiffs case further is that thereafter he made representations and appeals to the authorities concerned against the termination of his service, but they were not accepted. There was a conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act. There also he failed. Thereafter the plaintiff filed this suit.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants who filed a written statement contending, inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable and there was no cause of action for the suit and that the suit was barred by estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. Their case was that the plaintiff had, in an unambiguous term, expressed his intention to resign in his letter dated the 12th of September, 1966 and the same having been accepted, became final. It was also stated that the plaintiffs intention to resign became confirmed by his letter dated the 29th of September, 1968 addressed to defendant No. 2, It was contended that in the circumstances, as stated above, the plaintiff was rightly not allowed to join his duties. They disclaimed any knowledge about mental condition of the plaintiff after acceptance of his resignation. On these pleas it was prayed that the plaintiffs suit was liable to be dismissed.

4. The parties went to trial and adduced oral and documentary evidence. On consideration of the materials on the record, the Court below held that the acceptance of the plaintiffs resignation was premature, void ab initio and the plaintiff must, there fore, be deemed to be still in service. The plaintiffs suit was, accordingly, decreed.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the plaintiffs suit was not maintainable and that it was barred under the provision of Sec.34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (equivalent to Sec. 42 of the old Act). It was urged that the plaintiffs resignation having been accepted, it became final and he was no longer in service of the Corporation and as such he was not entitled to maintain the suit. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, on the o