SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Raj) 2459

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
N.P.Gupta, Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, JJ.
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Dr. (Major) Hari Singh Rathore - Respondent
Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 392 of 2007.
Decided On : 15-09-2008

For the Appellant:N. S. Singhvi and Arun Bhansali, Advocates.
For the Respondent:P. S. Bhati, Advocate.

Headnote:

     (a) Constitution of India, Art. 14 and 16 – The issue dealt with the resignation. The giving details of events, facts, and circumstances by which the employee was compelled to resign, cannot be said to be conditional – If there is no provision as per the established regime that the resignation should be given to a particular authority it will not be invalid merely on the ground that it was not given to the proper authority – Unless the resignation has not been accepted by the competent authority the resigning person has a right to withdraw his resignation – The petitioner was appointed as a surgeon .He was redesignated as medical superintendent. He was not given any additional charge or payment or allowance. It was observed that it cannot be said that he was holding two different posts of surgeon and medical superintendent. His resignation from the post of medical superintendent would bring an end to his employment and so the relation of employer – employee was severed. It he did not mention in the resignation that he was willing to continue as surgeon, it will not be continued as such.

       (b) Evidence Act, 1872 – S. 115 – Resignation – The doctrine of estoppel was in the issue. The plea of the employer that the employee was estopped from assailing the action of the employer in relieving him because the employee accepted some amount on account of his resignation. It was observed that this was never raised. Such a plea is a question of fact. It cannot be allowed to be pleaded at the stage of appeal.

       (c) Constitution of India, Art. 14 and 16 – It was observed that for the purpose of payment of back wages, the conduct of the employee cannot be a relevant consideration. His conduct after his termination is relevant. If the employee was deliberately delaying his appearance before the court then he was not entitled for the back wages from the date of termination but only from the date when he appeared before the court. The petitioner was about to retire and there was only one post which was already filled. So the corporation was directed to reinstate the petitioner till the age of superannuation.

JUDGMENT

1. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant, to challenge the order of the learned single Judge dated 7-3-2007, accepting the writ petition of the respondent, and holding, that the present appellant erroneously accepted the resignation of the writ petitioner, from service, and on that basis, allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 16-9-1992 (Annexure/15), accepting the resignation of the petitioner from service, and directing, the writ petitioner to be reinstated, in the service, with all consequential benefits.

2. The necessary facts are, that the petitioner was released from army, as a short service Commission Officer, and was selected on the post of Surgeon, and appointed by the present appellant, vide order dated 1-1-1990, then a corrigendum was issued on 11-7-1991 (Annexure 5 and 6).

3. We may notice here that in exhibit 5, the petitioner was offered appointment on the post of Surgeon, and vide exhibit/6, it was confirmed, that the petitioner has been appointed as Surgeon SO/SF. This SO/SF is scientific officer and S. F. is the scale pay. It is then alleged, that the petitioner ought to have been fixed at Rs. 5100/- basic, on the basis of the LPC, issued by the army, then, it is alleged in para 8, that it was a custom and practice, in the RAPS hospital, to treat the senior most Dr. as Medical Superintendent, who besides his normal work, was to look after administrative, and financial aspect of medical wing. According to the petitioner, the petitioner being senior most Medical Officer on the day, he was appointed, as he was given highest salary, in the higher grade, in medical wing, being SO/SF, while all other doctors were appointed in the lower grade. It is then alleged, that this appointment of the petitioner was not liked by already working medical superintendent Dr. P. K. Sinha, and Dr. Srinivasan, and consequently on the day, the petitioner joined, the conspiracy was hatched to harass, humiliate and torture the petitioner, so that he is compelled to resign, and respondents Nos. 3 to 6, wanted to precipitate a situation to throw away the petitioner, for various reasons, catalogued in para 11, which included to work and report to Dr. P. K. Sinha being a lower grade officer, then Dr. Sri Nivadeh's interest in bringing to Dr. Shringi from Madras to Rajasthan and so on. In that para, though the petitioner has purported to catalogue the reasons, on ground of which he was sought to be thrown out, but as a matter of fact, apart from the above, the petitioner has narrated only inconveniences and sufferings, that were being felt by the petitioner, in his job. Be that as it may. It is then alleged that Dr. P. K. Sinha was transferred on 10-6-1991, and the petitioner was made in charge of RAPS hospital, instead of making him medical superintendent, without financial powers, and it was on his representation, and on intervention of Managing Director, that vide order dated 20-9-1991. Ex. B, the petitioner was designated as Medical Superintendent. And then, in para. 16, the petitioner has purportedly produced Ex./9 dated 14-11-1991, to contend that there is no post of Medical Superintendent in the corporation, and senior most amongst the specialist, is designated as Medical Superintendent. It is also alleged, that it was at a late stage, that due to intervention of managing director, that the petitioner was made Medical Superintendent, which was not liked by the respondents Nos. 3 to 6, and thus, difficulties were created in his working. Then, the petitioner has catalogued day to day events of the difficulties and inconveniences, being faced by him. Then, it is alleged that since in view of the circumstances catalogued in the writ petition, it became difficult for the petitioner to work efficiently and discharging his additional duties, as Medical Superintendent, the petitioner, requested Shri T. S. V. Ramesh, to issue him a certificate, stating therein, that the petitioner is employed by the respondent, as Su




























































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top