The main legal point established is that the acceptance of the petitioner's resignation and the order treating the period of absence as unauthorized leave had a significant impact on the petitioner's service continuity and seniority.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

“(A) quash and set aside impugned order dated 3.4.1998, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ahmedabad, Annexure-A to this petition, and

(B) quash and set aside the order passed by Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax dated 27.1.2004, Annexure-B to this petition, and

(C) quash and set aside the order passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal dated 29.9.2006 on Appeal No. 99 of 2004, Annexure-C to this petition, and

(D) quash and set aside the order dated 20.12.2000, Annexure-T to this petition,

(E) further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner, and

(EE) Direct the respondent authorities to refund the amount recovered from the pay and retirement benefits of the petitioner as referred to in Annexure-A and C to this petition, with interest at the rate which the Honourable Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

(F) pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable Court may be pleased to grant the mandatory injunction against the further implementation and operation of the impugned order dated 3.4.1998, Annexure-A to this petition, and further be pleased to stay the orders dated 27.1.2004, Annexure-B to this petition and order dated 29.9.2006, Annexure-C to this petition, and order dated 20.12.2000, Annexure-T to this petition,

(G) award the cost of the petition, and

(H) grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case...”

2. Brief facts of the case are as under :

2.1) In the year, 1980, the petitioner was selected as Junior Clerk by the Government, through the Centralized Recruitment Scheme and was allotted to the office of the Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner, Rajkot for being appointed on the post of Junior Clerk and accordingly, the petitioner had joined the service in the Sales Tax Department on 29.4.1980 and an order to that effect dated 7.5.1980 was passed by the Appointing Authority, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax.

2.2) It is the case of the petitioner that in July, 1982, the petitioner was transferred to Ahmedabad. The name of the petitioner, before her marriage was Kum. Daxaben Trambaklal Parikh, which has been changed as Smt. Daxaben Bharatkmar Shah and the same was entered in her service record by the respondent authorities vide office order of June, 1983.

2.3) While working at Ahmedabad under the administrative control of the Sales Tax Officer, the petitioner had addressed a letter to the Sales Tax Officer, on 16.5.1986 that her resignation may be accepted with effect from 16.6.1986. Thereafter, the petitioner stopped attending the work.

2.4) It is the case of the petitioner that the competent authority i.e. the appointing authority i.e. Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner vide his letter dated 11.5.1989 and subsequent reminder dated 22.6.1989 informed the petitioner that her resignation cannot be accepted in view of the report of the Sales Tax Officer.

2.5) The petitioner by letter dated 20.6.1989 informed the Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner her desire about withdrawing her resignation. Subsequently, the Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner Ahmedabad, vide his letter dated 31.7.1990 asked the petitioner to immediately resume her duties.

2.6) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had gone to her office however, since according to the office, there was no vacant post, the petitioner was asked to wait for appropriate posting order from the higher authorities.

2.7) Accordingly, the petitioner had, after waiting for a reasonable period, written an application on 18.1.1991, to the respondent no.2- Commissioner, inter-alia requesting that the petitioner may be permitted to resume her duties.

2.8) Thereafter, the