218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-6109-2025 Reserved on: 16.01.2026.

Date of Pronouncement:24.03.2026 Uploaded on: 24.03.2026.

NIRMAL SINGH -PETITIONER V/S THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ANOTHER -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Ajay Kamboj, Advocate Ms. Kiranpreet Kaur, Advocate, Mr. Gurdarshan Singh Sidhu, Advocate and Mr. Pardeep Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Sukriti Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Manveen Narang, Advocate, for the respondents.

*****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. The petitioner’s request for withdrawal of his resignation tendered on dated 10.12.2024 (Annexure P-4), was declined by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide an administrative order dated 23.12.2024 (Annexure P-7). Thereafter, his representation dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure P-6), seeking reconsideration of the order accepting his resignation vide order dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure P-5), was also rejected vide order dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P-9). The legality of both the orders (supra), has been questioned by filing instant writ petition cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

2. In nutshell, the facts which are essential for adjudication of the instant case, are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Peon vide memo 31.03.2017 (Annexure P-1), and joined the Sessions Division on 03.04.2017. He continued to discharge his duties till November, 2024. However, on 10.12.2024, he tendered his resignation to learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Sirsa. On the very next day, i.e. 11.12.2024, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sirsa, accepted the said resignation, subject to deposit of one month's salary and other dues. Thereafter, after a lapse of 06 days, i.e. on 17.12.2024 (Annexure P-6), the petitioner submitted an application for withdrawal of his resignation on the ground that he was suffering from anxiety. He also submitted that since now, he overcome his domestic problems, and had no other source of any income, and had liability to raise his three daughters and a son, therefore, his request for resignation dated 10.12.2024, be ignored. The said request for withdrawal of his resignation was declined vide order 23.12.2024. Subsequently, the petitioner made a detailed representation seeking reconsideration of the decision of acceptance of resignation (supra). However, the same did not yield any fruit, and finally, vide order dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P-9), the said representation was also rejected, citing Rule 19 (2) of the Haryana Group 'D' Employees (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rule, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2018'), which bars withdrawal of any resignation after its acceptance by the appointing authority.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his endeavour to throw challenge to the impugned orders, submitted that the petitioner's resignation was never finally accepted vide order dated 11.12.2024, rather it was only a conditional acceptance, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. However, the said conditions were never fulfilled, and prior to their fulfillment, the petitioner within a period of six days, submitted a request for withdrawal of his resignation. However, the said request was erroneously declined on the incorrect presumption that petitioner's resignation had already been accepted vide order dated

11.12.2024 (Annexure P-5).

4. While referring to Rule 19 of the Rules of 2018, he further submitted that a member of service may resign by giving a notice of not less than three months in writing directly to the appointing authority, and such notice period shall be reckoned from the date of receipt of such notice by the appointing authority. He further submitted that the mandatory notice period of three months had not expired in the present case, and, in fact, the petitioner sought withdrawal of his resignation within a week of its submission. Therefore, in terms o