Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1957
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI, SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
N.B. TIWARI - Appellant
Versus
KALKA PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR - Respondents
LPA 436 of 2018
Decided on : 10-08-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra and Ms.Poonam Atley, Advocates
For the Respondent Mr. Devesh Dubey, Advocate for Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Adv
The resignation submitted by an employee is to be accepted within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of resignation by the Managing Committee with the approval of the Director, as per Rule 114A of the Delhi School Education Act.
Headnote:
Condonation of Delay - Employment Dispute - Delhi School Education Act, Rule 114A - The court discussed the communication issued by the appellant, the acceptance of resignation, and the provisions of Rule 114A of the Delhi School Education Act. The court found that the resignation submitted by the appellant was not withdrawn at any point of time, and therefore, the appellant could not be given any benefit. The appeal was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought condonation of 38 days delay in filing the appeal. The appeal challenged the order for reinstatement with consequential benefits issued by the Delhi School Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the resignation submitted by the appellant was not withdrawn at any point of time, and therefore, the appellant could not be given any benefit.
Issues: The issues revolved around the acceptance of the appellant's resignation and the application of Rule 114A of the Delhi School Education Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the resignation submitted by the appellant was not withdrawn at any point of time, the appellant could not be given any benefit.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
CM.APPL 32016/2018(delay)
1. This is an application filed by the applicant/appellant seeking condonation of 38 days delay in filing the present appeal.
2. Heard.
3. The prayer made in the application is not opposed. Delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
4. The application stands disposed of.
LPA 436/2018
5. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24.05.2018 in a writ petition instituted by respondent no.1 School where challenge was laid to the order passed by the Delhi School Tribunal by which the appellant herein was directed to be reinstated with consequential benefits.
6. Some necessary facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant herein was working as a Lab Assistant in the respondent no.1 School initially on ad hoc basis and consequently he was confirmed in the year 1997. The controversy revolves around a communication which was issued by the appellant herein on 16.10.2000, which we reproduce below:
“To
ANNEXURE P-4
The Principal,
16.10.2000
Alaknanda, New Delhi-110019.
Sub:- Self Relinquish of My post as Lab Asstt. On the basis of three months prior notice.
Respected Madam,
I have some genuine problem to your higher authorities, which is not tolerable at this stage. Because there is no any media to support of my genuine problem like that:-
1. No Implementation of my grade as Lab Asstt. From July, 96 to till November, 2000. While I have written prove from your side. That should be attached here with this application.
2. No arrear granted on till date.
3. No Bonus issue from joining to till date.
4. No any leave record.
5. Provide gratuity under the Rule.
On above problem in my sense is genuine as on date. That is why I am producing application in front of you.
Please accept and finalized to all account within this duration.
| Thanking you, | N.B. Tiwari Physics Lab. Asstt.” |
7. It is the case of the appellant that post issuance of this communication, he did not receive any response from the School. In effect, his resignation was not accepted. It is also contended that there was no communication on record as to whether the Directorate of Education (DOE) also accepted the resignation of the appellant or not. It is thus, contended that in the absence of a formal communication to the appellant either by the School or by the Directorate of Education duly accepting his resignation, he could not have been relieved of his services. Counsel has relied upon two decisions in the case of Modern School v. Shashi Pal Sharma and Others, reported at (2007) 8 SCC 540 and Dr. Prabha Atri v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported at AIR 2003 SC 534.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly admits that the judgment in the case of Modern School(supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case as in the aforesaid matter, the resignation was withdrawn although after it had been accepted. However, he submits that the case of Dr. Prabha Atri(supra) would apply as his resignation was conditional in nature. It was issued on account of frustration and on account of the fact that the demands of the appellant, i.e., no arrears were granted to him, no bonus was given to him, no leave record was provided, no gratuity was given and the non-implementation of Grade as Lab Assistant. Out of exasperation such a communication was issued by the appellant.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent Directorate of Education has entered appearance on an advance copy. He submits that although there is nothing on record to show that the resignation was accepted by the Directorate of Education, however, he submits that the learned Single Judge rightly relied upon Rule 114A of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules wherein it has been stated that in case the resignation is not accepted within 30 days, it would be deemed to have been acce
