Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.

1. The petitioner is working as an Assistant Engineer with the National Building Constructions Corporation Limited (NBCC Ltd.), the respondent herein. He has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the respondent be directed to accept his resignation with immediate effect. The facts in a nut shell are as follows:

The petitioner joined the respondent, which is a Government of India Enterprise, as Junior Engineer on 28.1.1985. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and was designated as Project Executive. On 4.10.2005, he wrote a letter seeking voluntary retirement. There he also stated that if his request for voluntary retirement is not granted, that letter be treated as his resignation from service with immediate effect. However, on 8.11.2005, the petitioner was informed that the competent authority had considered his request and had refused the same due to administrative reasons. The letter stated as follows:

In the matter it is to inform you that your aforesaid request has been considered by the competent Authority but the same has not been agreed to due to administrative reason.

2. Another letter sent by the petitioner on 15.12.2005 to the Chairman cum Managing Director of the respondent repeating his request for voluntary retirement/ resignation did not elicit any response. The petitioner also sent a reminder dated 19.7.2006, requesting the respondent to accept his request for voluntary retirement or resignation with immediate effect. Thereafter the petitioner stopped attending office. On 8.8.2006, the petitioner was again informed by the respondent that his request had been considered carefully by the competent authority but could not be granted due to administrative reasons. The relevant portion of that letter is as follows:

Your request has been considered carefully by the Competent Authority

but it is regretted that the same has also not been agreed to due to administrative reason.

Consequently, the petitioner again sent a letter dated 28.8.2006 to the Chairman cum Managing Director of the respondent which also proved to be of no avail.

3. Before delving into the matter, it is important to point out that in spite of a number of opportunities having been granted to the respondent to file its counter-affidavit, the respondent failed to file the same. Consequently, on 8.1.2008, the right of the respondent to file its counter affidavit was closed.

4. The controversy in the instant case deals with the concept of resignation. The term resignation according to Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Edition means;

Resignation. Formal renouncement or relinquishment of an office. It must be made with intention of relinquishing the office accompanied by the act of relinquishment.

According to the petitioner the tendering of a resignation is a legal right of the employee which cannot be curtailed or denied by any authority. It has also been contended by the petitioner that his resignation was rejected merely for "administrative reasons" and his efforts to seek clarification with regard to this expression were in vain therefore he is entitled to the relief prayed for.

5. Whilst, it is correct to say that an employee may resign at any time, unless there is something contrary in the service rules or the contract, but for an act of resignation to become complete and effective, other factors also play a pivotal role. While discussing the meaning of the term resignation, these factors were pointed to by the Supreme Court in Moti Ram v. Param Dev : (1993)IILLJ629SC where the Court held that;

16. As pointed out by this Court, resignation means the spontaneous relinquishment of ones own right and in relation to an office, it connotes the act of giving up or relinquishing the office. It has been held that in the general juristic sense, in order to constitute a complete and operative resignation there must be the intention to give up or relinquish the office and the concom