The appointment terms and resignation communication were crucial in determining the petitioner's entitlement to notice pay. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the appointment terms and the application of FACT Rules 36A.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Chawla, J.

By the instant writ petition, the petitioner, in effect, seeks quashing of the order dated 08.02.2018, whereby, the representation made by the petitioner, who was employed with Fertilizers and Chemical Travancore Limited in short 'FCTL' as Chief Operating Officer in short 'COO' was disposed of and as a consequence thereof, he was required to pay three months' salary in lieu of notice pay.

2. Concisely, the facts are that the respondents had issued an advertisement/notification no.GM-HR&ADMN-COO 2015 dated 28.12.2015 inviting applications for appointment to the post of COO, New Delhi for its Division-FACT Engineering & Design Organisation (FEDO). The petitioner, who, at that time was employed with EdCil, applied for and was appointed to the post of COO (FEDO) vide appointment letter dated 07.05.2016. As per the terms and conditions of his such appointment, he was to be headquartered at New Delhi and be on probation for a period of six months from the date of his joining, which he did on 20.06.2016. On 26.12.2016, the respondents issued an order and thereby, he was posted/transferred to FEDO, Udhyogamandal, Kochi, with headquarters to be Udhyogamandal. On the receipt of such communication, the petitioner made representation through e-mail dated 28.12.2016 to be allowed to continue in the present posting at Delhi on account of his personal exigency as his daughter was to appear for the forthcoming Class-XII Board exams. The request so made by the petitioner was rejected on 30.12.2016 through e-mail and he was asked to join Udhyogamandal not later than 06.01.2017. Thereafter also, the petitioner made representations seeking extensions of time inter alia on account of the impending Board exams of his daughter. As per the last extension granted, he was required to join FEDO Udhyogamandal latest by 01.04.2017. The petitioner however made another representation dated 03.03.2017 on account of his own sickness and sought to continue at Delhi till the exams of her daughter get over, the last of which was scheduled for 24.04.2017. On 24.03.2017, the respondents extended the probation of the petitioner by six months. On 29.03.2017, the petitioner sought to be relieved from the services. Vide its communication dated 31.03.2017, the respondents communicated that his resignation was accepted and in doing so, the petitioner was stated to be liable to pay three months' salary in lieu of notice pay as per the rules of the company. Through another e-mail communication of even date, the petitioner was forwarded the letter of acceptance CGM-HR-CO-086 dated 31.03.2017. Petitioner immediately responded to it through e-mail and conveyed to the respondents that he was not in a position to pay three months' salary in lieu of notice period and that his notice period may be set off against his privileged leave (PL) and for the balance period, he sought waiver. Alternatively, he also requested that he may be allowed to complete the notice period. Nothing emerges from the record nor has it come to be pointed out during the course of hearing that it was ever responded to. On 03.04.2017, the petitioner reiterated waiver of the notice inter alia pointing out that he was willing to serve notice period as per rules and that his request for being relieved at the earliest did not imply any admission on his part to pay the notice period. He also pointed out that he had brought such facts to the notice of CGM (HR) on 30.03.2017. On 24.06.2017, the respondents asked the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.3,89,351/- while giving details of settlement of his claims. Finding no positive response, the petitioner got a notice of demand dated 31.08.2017 issued through his Advocate demanding inter alia to release his pending dues. It met with a response dated 07.11.2017 through the respondent's Advocate, and, thereby, the respondents reiterated its stand. It resulted into filing of W.P.(C) 11049 of 2017 Inderjeet Singh Sidhu vs. Union of India & Ors.'.