The principle of delay and laches can bar the relief in service matters if no satisfactory explanation for the delay is provided, even if merits may favor the applicant.

ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he had joined service as an Assistant Draughtsman in the respondent board on 15.02.1989 and was absorbed into the services of the respondent board in the same year. It is further stated by the petitioner that since he was participating in agitations conducted against the injustice meted out to the employees of the board by the higher officials, he was harassed and victimised by the officials, as a result, he was transferred to various wings of the respondent and upon such transfer, he was not assigned any work; and that where work was assigned, no place was provided for him to sit and work.

3. The petitioner further contended that on account of the humiliation faced by him at the hands of the respondent and the lack of proper action on his complaint regarding the demand for payment of illegal gratification, he submitted resignation on 04.06.2005 to the Executive Engineer, TWAD, Vellore; that the said authority by his memo dated 12.09.2005 instructed the petitioner to attend his office in order to redress his grievance and thereafter by letter dated 24.10.2005, sought clarification as to the further action to be taken on the resignation letter dated 04.06.2005.

4. The petitioner further contended that upon submitting his resignation letter on 04.06.2005, nothing was heard from the respondent authority regarding the acceptance or rejection of his resignation, he was permitted to continue work until 04.07.2005, when he was orally instructed not to do his duties until a final order was passed on his resignation letter; that in the meantime, due to his family situation, he requested to withdraw his resignation letter on 09.10.2006, expressing his willingness to continue his work; that however since, his request for withdrawal of resignation, vide letter dated 09.10.2006 was misplaced, he was instructed to file a fresh representation, which he submitted on 20.07.2007 expressing his willingness to rejoin duty.

5. The petitioner further contended that although he had submitted his fresh representation on 20.07.2007, he was served with letter dated 07.08.2007 under the signature of the Executive Engineer, accepting his resignation with effect from 04.06.2005, despite the fact that he had withdrawn the resignation as early as on 09.10.2006 and again by submitting representation on 20.07.2007; and that the respondent accepted the resignation submitted by him after a lapse of two years; and that the respondent’s acceptance of the resignation after such a prolonged delay is improper.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the aforesaid order accepting his resignation, he submitted an appeal before the 1^st respondent on 21.11.2007; that since, no action was taken on the said appeal, he approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P. No.30645 of 2008 challenging the order of the 6^th respondent accepting his resignation after a lapse of two years and seeking to allow him to continue in service with benefits of continuity of service, back pay, and other attendant benefits; that this Court by order dated 18.03.2009, directed the 1^st respondent to consider the appeal filed by him on 21.11.2007 and pass appropriate orders; that pursuant to the said order, the 1^st respondent vide proceedings dated 05.05.2009, directed him to join duty and further instructed him to appear before the 4^th respondent to obtain an appointment order; that the 4^th respondent vide