The denial of backwages was justified due to the petitioner's contribution to the situation, and the court affirmed the Tribunal's decision.

JUDGMENT :

DIPAK MISRA, J.

The petitioner, a Food Inspector in the Department of Food and Civil Supply, after completing 16 years of service sought premature retirement by preferring an application dated 7-1-1993 with effect from 7-4-1993. The request for voluntarily retirement was acceded to by the Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, the respondent No. 2 herein, in exercise of power conferred on him under Rule 42 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short 'the Rules') by order dated 29-4-1993 and the petitioner was retired from government service with effect from 30-4-1993. The pension papers were prepared and provisional pension of Rs. 405/- was sanctioned by the Collector. However, the same was objected to by the Senior Accounts Officer (Pension), Pension Cell in the Office of the Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Bhopal on the ground that the petitioner had not rendered 20 years of qualifying service and, therefore, was not entitled to any pension or gratuity. The said aspect was intimated to the petitioner. Being apprised of the aforesaid situation he submitted a representation dated 22-6-1994 for taking him back in service with effect from 1-5-1993 treating the intervening period to be leave without pay or fixing the pension amount at Rs. 450/-. This prayer of the petitioner was not acceded to as a consequence of which the petitioner visited the M. P. Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal (in short 'the Tribunal') in Original Application No. 478/1994. The said Original Application was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 13-9-1996 on the ground that the acceptance of premature retirement on the request of the petitioner by the competent authority was not falliable and there was no legal ground to lancet the same. While dismissing the application the Tribunal in Paragraph 6 had granted liberty to the petitioner to make a mercy petition to the competent authority highlighting his hardships and impoverished situation. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in an application for review forming the subject-matter of M. A. No. 196/1996 wherein the Tribunal in paragraph 9 of the order came to hold that the applicant was totally ignorant about the Rules and had not exercised due care and proper deligence before writing a letter of resignation to the appointing authority. The Tribunal also opined that the notice given by the applicant was void and is non est in the eye of law. In view of the aforesaid conclusion the Tribunal came to hold that the petitioner was deemed to have been continuing in service even after the date on which his so called letter for retirement was accepted. After recalling the order passed in the original application the Tribunal directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith. Thereafter, it addressed itself with regard to grant of backwages. We think it apposite to reproduce the reasons ascribed by the Tribunal :

"9. The applicant shall be deemed to be in service even after 30th April 1993. His letter dated 7-1-1993 as well as the order of the Director Food and Civil Supplies dated 29-4-1993 retiring him with effect from the afternoon of 30th April, 1993 are declared null and void. The applicant shall, therefore, be taken back on duty forthwith. As regards the pay and allowances for the period the applicant did not perform duty no such payment shall be made to him as he has performed no duty during this period. We are not ordering the payment of pay and allowances to him because the applicant himself initiated the process of his early retirement. He was not forced to submit his letter of retirement. The situation which has come to pass has developed because of his own action. He was required to study the provision of the rule before writing the letter dated 7-1-1993. Thus quite clearly he was a contributory factor to the situation which has arisen. The mistake no doubt got compounded because of negligence of respo