Back
2016 Supreme(J&K) 52
In the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar
Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.
Mudasir Bashir and Anr. – Appellants
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
S.W.P. 2177 of 2013
Decided On : 07-04-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Asif Maqbool.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.A. Makroo, ASGI.
Coerced resignations lose their legal effect and cannot be considered voluntary, leading to the quashing of acceptance orders and deeming the employees to be in continuous service.
Headnote:
Resignation - Coerced Resignation - Territorial Jurisdiction - [Resignation] - [Coerced Resignation] - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India] - The judgment discusses the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the nature of coerced resignation, and the territorial jurisdiction of the court based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The court held that part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction, and the resignations tendered by the petitioners were not voluntary due to coercion from a militant organization. The court quashed the orders accepting the resignations and deemed the petitioners to be in continuous service of the respondents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners joined the service of respondents in Training Centre Barauni, Bihar and tendered their resignations while undergoing basic training course, claiming that the resignations were not voluntary but forced by threatening letters received by their parents from militants. The respondents accepted the resignations, and the petitioners filed a writ petition seeking fresh consideration of their cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the resignations were not voluntary and were coerced by a militant organization, rendering them legally inconsequential. The court quashed the orders accepting the resignations and deemed the petitioners to be in continuous service of the respondents.
Issues: The issues involved the voluntariness of the resignations, the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the writ petition, and the legal consequences of coerced resignations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction, and the resignations tendered by the petitioners were not voluntary due to coercion from a militant organization. Coerced resignations lose their legal effect and cannot be considered voluntary. The court also emphasized the binding precedent of the Supreme Court's judgment and the estoppel of the respondents from raising objections not raised earlier.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders accepting the resignations, deemed the petitioners to be in continuous service of the respondents, and directed the payment of consequential benefits to the petitioners.
Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.
1. The petitioners joined the service of respondents in Training Centre Barauni, Bihar on 27th December, 2005 & 29th December, 2005 respectively.
2. The petitioners, while undergoing basic training course, tendered their resignations, which were accepted by the Commandant T.C with effect from 20th March, 2006. The petitioners, thereafter, approached the respondents with the plea that the resignations, tendered by them, were not voluntary.
3. It was the case of the petitioners before the respondents that the resignations were tendered due to the threatening letters received by their parents from the militants. When the respondents did not take any action on the aforesaid claim of the petitioners, they (petitioners) filed writ petition-SWP 631/2009, which was disposed of by the Court vide its order dated 05th August, 2013. The Court, while disposing of the writ petition, observed that the respondents shall reexamine the issue of tendering of resignations of the petitioners in the light of the case set up by them in the writ petition. The Court also observed that the respondents were not expected to, summarily, accept the resignations of the petitioners but to consider the circumstances, in which they were forced to put in their papers. Writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondents to accord fresh consideration to the claim of the petitioners in the light of averments made in the writ petition and annexures appended thereto.
4. In pursuance to the aforesaid Court order, the respondent-Director General, Sashastra Seema Bal, passed an order dated 15th October, 2013. On the basis of reasons recorded in the said order, the claim of the petitioners, for fresh consideration of their cases, was held to be not tenable.
5. The petitioners, besides challenging the aforesaid order in this writ petition, have also challenged order dated 20th March, 2006, whereunder their resignations were accepted.
6. In the writ petition, it is pleaded that the resignations, tendered by the petitioners, were not voluntary acts on their part, but they were forced by the circumstances to do so. It is also pleaded that the parents of the petitioners were send threatening letters by one militant organization, in which, it was stated that in case their sons did not resign from the Army, then they will be killed. The petitioners, along with the Additional Affidavit, filed after obtaining permission from the Court, have placed on record copy of the communication send to their parents by the militant organization. Perusal of the said communication would show that fathers' of the petitioners were informed that their children, viz. petitioners, who stand appointed in the Indian Army, be called back within a week's time. They were threatened that in case the instruction was not complied with, then, besides burning their residential houses, the fathers of these petitioners will be send to hell.
7. The Commandant T.C, SSB, Barauni, at paragraph (7) of his Reply dated 14th November, 2006, send to the learned counsel for the petitioners, has admitted that the resignation was tendered by the petitioners because of the threat from the militants.
8. The respondents, in their Reply Affidavit, have stated that the resignations were voluntary and same were, accordingly, accepted by the Competent Authority.
9. Learned counsel for the parties argued in tune with their respective pleadings.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme court in case titled Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329 : AIR 2014 SC 3607 and while referring to paragraphs 19 & 20 thereof, he submitted that this Court is having jurisdiction to entertain and decide this writ petition. Reliance is placed on this judgment by learned counsel for the petitioners in view of the argument projected by learned counsel for the respondents that this Court is lacking jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ
