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

2021 Supreme(All) 1109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Suneet Kumar, J.
Gangadhara Dasappa - Petitioner
Vs.
Union Of India And 3 Others - Respondent
WRIT - A No. - 6161 of 2021, WRIT - A No. - 8420 of 2021
Decided On : 3-12-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Saurabh Basu
For the Respondent: G.I.,Rohan Gupta

Point of Law : The Board in exercise of power conferred under Section 33 read with Section 34 of IIIT Act with the approval of the Visitor notified the First Statute of IIIT. Statute 10 provides terms and conditions of service of permanent staff. Sub-clause 7 provides that an employee may resign from his or her service by giving the appointing authority three months notice.

Headnote:

Indian Institute of Information Technology Act, 2014. [Information Technology Act] - Section 4, 13, 15, 33, 34 - Constitution of Board of Governors of each Institute which shall be the principal executive body of the institute - Powers and functions of Board of Governors which include to create teaching and other academic posts, to determine, by Statutes, the number and emoluments of such posts and to define the duties and conditions of service of teachers and other academic staff - Petitioner has been a meritorious student having Gold Medal in M.Sc. (Computer Science) - He hails from Mysore Karnataka, had applied for Ph.D. with respondent-Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad I [IIIT Allahabad] - In meantime, petitioner applied for post of Junior Technical Superintendent - He got selected and was issued appointment letter, in pay band-2, scale with grade pay - As per terms of appointment letter, petitioner was kept on probation for two years from date of his joining.

Findings of the court :

Having regard to admitted facts, inter se, parties, it is admitted that petitioner came to appointed, in year 2018, therefore, provisions of, Memorandum would apply and not provisions of Office Memorandum dated 11 February 1988, which is applicable to government servant appointed - On a careful reading of provisions mandated in two Memorandums, it is explicit that acceptance of resignation in so far as petitioner is concerned would be date on which resignation became effective i.e. date of acceptance and not date on which government servant was relived.

Result : Writ petition dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Suneet Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Saurabh Basu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. It is urged by learned counsel for the parties that both the petitions can be decided together. For the sake of convenience, the facts set out in Writ-A No. 6161 of 2021, is being referred to for deciding the petitions.

3. Petitioner has been a meritorious student having Gold Medal in M.Sc. (Computer Science). He hails from Mysore Karnataka, had applied for Ph.D. with the respondent-Indian Institute of Information Technology, AllahabadI [IIIT Allahabad]. In the meantime, petitioner applied for the post of Junior Technical Superintendent. He got selected and was issued appointment letter dated 11 July 2018, in pay band-2, scale Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay at Rs.4200. As per terms of the appointment letter, petitioner was kept on probation for two years from the date of his joining.

4. It appears that petitioner was facing matrimonial dispute with his wife, he became depressed and could not concentrate on his work or pursue higher qualification, accordingly, petitioner tendered his resignation from the post of Junior Technical Superintendent on 21 May 2020. The resignation was accepted by the Competent Authority on 26 May 2020, however, the relieving date was extended to 31 August 2020 vide impugned order dated 27 May 2020, issued by the fourth respondent-Joint Registrar (Establishment). It appears that the relieving was further extended on the request of the petitioner until 18 September 2020, as he had some pending work. Petitioner, thereafter, withdrew his resignation vide communication/letter dated 8 December 2020.

5. In terms of the Department of Personal & Training, [DOPT] Office Memorandum dated 10 June 2019, the application of the petitioner to withdraw the resignation came to be rejected by the third respondent-Competent Authority, which was communicated by the Joint Registrar (Establishment) vide order dated 29 January 2021.

6. The instant petition raises challenge to the communication dated 27 May 2020 and 29 January 2021.

7. The communication dated 27 May 2020 extends the relieving date, whereas, order dated 29 January 2021 assigned the reason for not permitting the petitioner to withdraw the resignation.

8. In the impugned order, reason assigned for not accepting withdrawal of the resignation by the petitioner is based on a legal opinion that since petitioner is not a confirmed employee or permanent government servant, therefore, he cannot be permitted to withdraw the resignation after the resignation was duly accepted and relieved from service. Relevant portion of the impugned order dated 29 January 2021 reads thus:

    “Mr. Gangadhara D. was not a confirmed employee or a permanent government servant and therefore he cannot be permitted to withdraw the resignation. Once it is accepted by the Appointing Authority and he was duly relieved from the services.”

This letter is being served to you as per direction of the Competent Authority.”

9. Petitioner has placed reliance on the Office Memorandum dated 10 June 2019, issued by DOPT which provides guidelines/instructions that may be followed while considering the request for withdrawal of resignation of the government servant. Para 2(c) of the Office Memorandum provides that an employee can be permitted to withdraw resignation provided the period is not more than ninety days from the period of absence from duty between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed to resume his duty as a result of permission to withdraw the resignation. The relevant portion of the Office Memorandum is extracted:

    “Office Memorandum Subject: Withdrawal of resignation of Central Government servants appointed after 31.12.2003 covered under the National Pension System (NPS) reg.

2. The appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw his resi

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        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