Suresh Kait, J.:—

1. Vide the instant petition petitioner is seeking relief as under: i) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay Rs.9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty thousand only) along with interest @ 18% per annum in lieu of the benefits and dues to the petitioner. ii) Declare that the resignation of the petitioner is deemed to have taken effect from 29.11.1996 and or/02.01.1997; and that the petitioner ceases to be an employee of the respondent corporation from the respective dates.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was selected as Economic Advisor by respondent no. 1 in the year 1980. He was given the designation of DM which is equivalent to the rank of DGM at present.

3. The petitioner was discriminated by the Management of MMTC in October, 1996 when he was arbitrarily transferred to the corporate office to Delhi Regional Office, whereas the Officers with Station Seniority like CGM R. Hari (who joined MMTC in 1988) was never ever transferred out of the Corporate Office. Likewise, Mr. M.J. Rehman (who was also in the Corporate Office since 1984) was never been transferred even once out of it. According to the norms and practices of the transfer of MMTC, there is a three years rotational system and Officers with Station seniority should be transferred first. But the respondents flouted its own norms and procedure to victimize the petitioner, he was transferred vide order dated 29.10.1996. Since the transfer is not the issue in the instant petition, therefore it does not require further discussion.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of transfer, petitioner resigned from the respondent Corporation on 08.11.1996 asking to be relieved w.e.f 02.01.1997 which is annexed as Annexure B. Same is reproduced as under:

“I hereby tender my resignation as CGM of MMTC. Requirement of 3 months’ notice may please be waived for me and I may be relieved on January 2, 1997. If during the period of notice/the Corporation opens voluntary retirement scheme, I may be allowed to avail of the Scheme.”

5. Resignation of the petitioner was accepted after a vigilance clearance by the respondents on 22.11.1996, vide order of the same date bearing no. SCI/418/96 which is annexed as Annexure C. Same is reproduced as under:

“The Competent Authority has accepted the resignation of Dr. A. Nag, Chief General Manager (Emp. No. 911475), Corporate Office, with effect from 22nd November, 1996 (AN), subject to his furnishing the necessary undertaking/settlement of dues to the Company. Accordingly, Dr. Nag stands relieved of his duties from the Corporation with effect from 22nd Nov 1996 (AN).”

6. Subsequently vide order of the same date the petitioner stands relieved from his duties w.e.f 29.11.1996, the same is annexed as Annexure D, which is reproduced as under:

“The Competent Authority has accepted the resignation of Dr. A. Nag, Chief General Manager (Emp. No. 911475), Corporate Office, with effect from 29th November, 1996 (AN), subject to his furnishing the necessary undertaking/settlement of dues to the Company. Accordingly, Dr. Nag stands relieved of his duties from the Corporation with effect from 29th Nov 1996 (AN).”

7. The petitioner gave a note dated 27.11.1996 to the respondents pointing out that he had requested the respondent corporation to relieve him w.e.f 02.01.1997, however if the respondent no. 1 insisted on relieving him on 29.11.1996, then, he be compensated for those financial benefits, which he would be losing because of being relieved earlier. A copy of note dated 27.11.1996 which is annexed as Annexure E is reproduced as under:

“Ref.: O.O. NO. SCI/418/96, dt. November 22, 1996 Relieving me on November, 29, 1996 Received on November 26,1996 I thank the Corporation for accepting my resignation. In this connection reference may be made to my letter of resignation dated November 8, 1996, in which I had requested for relieving on 2nd January, 1997. I would still maintain that I am available to the service