JUDGMENT
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff who was. unsuccessful in both the Courts below. The case of the plaintiff-appellant is that he was appointed as J.B.T. teacher in Government Primary School, Abdal, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur and he joined as such on 5.7.1956. Since then he is performing his duties very honestly and to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. He was transferred from Government High School, Aliwal to Government High School, Ghanie-ke-Banger, Tehsil Batala. He further contends that while he was serving as a teacher in Government High School, Ghani-ke-Banger, in the year 1968 the then Head Master S. Paramjit Singh Bal become inimical to him and without any sufficient reason and without complying with any formalities prevented him from continuing in the school. Though, the plaintiff approached the respondents in this regard and made a request to them to “employ” in any school where the vacancy was available as he was a permanent employee. “Every time the defendants assured the plaintiff that they will take the matter into hands and the enquiry is pending a out it (sic). The suit was filed for a declaration to the effect that the appellant was a J.B.T. teacher employed with the respondents and he had never been dismissed from service and that he was entitled to all the service benefits, including arrears of pay, increments and all other emoluments for which he was entitled.
2. Written statement was filed by the respondents and it was contended that “the plaintiff has mentioned the transfer which relates to the period prior to submitting his resignation.” It was also contended that after giving resignation to the Head Master, appellant was never transferred as he had submitted his resignation on 11.6.1968 and thereafter abandoned his duty without any reasonable grounds.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant states that appellant had never tendered his resignation and even if the resignation is held to be tendered by him, the respondents had never accepted it and, therefore, he continued to be in service. The Courts below have taken cognizance of the fact that the appellant had, after tendering his resignation, contested the election of a Sarpanch and that he remained Sarpanch of the village of Kala Afgana for 10 years and also contested the election of M.L.A. in the year 1992. This fact has been admitted by the appellant himself. The entry in the dak register is at serial No. 171. Exhibit DW3/A was also considered by the Courts below. It is an entry regarding resignation by the appellant and the date mentioned in the dak register is 11.6.1968.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the resignation was never given by the appellant and even if the resignation was given, there is no evidence to show that it was ever accepted. In the cross-examination, the appellant has stated that it was incorrect that he submitted his resignation vide application dated 11.6.1968. He did not know any such entry in the dak register. He further stated that he was not going to the school till today (the date of his deposition) because he was not allowed by the Headmaster to mark his attendance. He has admitted that he contested the election of M.L.A. His witness PW2 has admitted in her cross-examination that the appellant had remained Sarpanch of the village. It is not in dispute that the appellant remained as Sarpanch for ten years.
5. Of course, the resignation letter is not on record. The endorsement regarding its acceptance is also not on record. However, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the entry in the dak register and the circumstances that there is nothing to show the correctness of the entry in the dak register and there is nothing to dispute that the appellant must have got his resignation accepted because he remained as Sarpanch and contested the election as M.L.A. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that even if the appellant had contested the election that would not mean that he had resigned from service. For this argument, he has relied on the case of Devi Dayal v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1998(2) R.S.J. 132. The petitioner in the said case had joined as a Functional Manager on August 14, 1985. He was promoted as a General Manager on March 20, 1996. Respondent No. 5 also joined service as a Functional Manager by way of direct recruitment on June 17, 1983. He was promoted as a General Manager on December 16, 1993. He tendered his resignation on March 27, 1996 because he wanted to contest the Haryana Assembly Election. He gave only 24 hours notice for acceptance of his resignation by depositing one month’s salary. The resignation was accepted on April 3, 1996 w.e.f. March 27, 1996. Respondent No. 5 did contest the Assembly election in the year 1996, but was defeated. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 applied for permission for withdrawing the resignation after he was defeated in the election. An order was issued on August 12, 1996 taking back respondent No. 5 in service on the advice of the Chief Secretary. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, respondent No. 5 joined as General Manager on August 16, 1996. He was granted leave of the kind due for the period from March 28, 1996 to August 15, 1996 and his break in service for the said period was regularised. The order of condoning the break in service had affected the petitioner in that case because respondent No. 5 was treated senior to the petitioner as General Manager. In that case, a Division Bench of this Court relied on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana etc., C.W.P. 6580 of 1994, decided on February 24, 1998 in which it has been observed that once the resignation was accepted, to allow an incumbent to contest an election, he cannot be allowed to withdraw the same after having been unsuccessful in the election and that such an incumbent, whose resignation has been accepted for contesting the election, cannot be taken back in service, but be can only apply for job in the Government as an ordinary citizen. Relying on the aforesaid Full Bench judgment, the Division Bench allowed the writ petition and quashed the order condoning the break in service of respondent No. 5.
6. The aforesaid judgment instead of helping the appellant goes against him. The principle of the Full Bench judgment accepted in the above Division Bench judgment is clear that the incumbent who resigns from service for contesting an election, cannot come back and sit in his original post and he has to only apply for job in the Government as an ordinary citizen.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the case of Ramesh K. Srivastava v. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, 1993(1) R.S.J. 351. It has been held therein that an employee is well within his right to withdraw his resignation before its acceptance. There is no dispute regarding this point and it is not the case of the appellant that he has withdrawn the resignation.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has also cited before me the case of Ravinder Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors., 1995(3) R.S.J. 904. In that case the Supreme Court found that the resignation was withdrawn before the communication of its acceptance. So, the acceptance to resignation was quashed as there was a withdrawal before the communication of its acceptance.
9. This case is on a different point. Again, it is not shown that there was withdrawal of the resignation.
10. In view of the above facts, the cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not of any help to his case.
11. The other argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no mention of acceptance of resignation in the written statement. The learned counsel for the State on the contrary has relied on the circumstances that the appellant remained as a Sarpanch for a long period. He, thereafter, also contested the election of M.L.A. and, therefore, according to him, the conclusion can be drawn that the resignation was accepted. This is the case of the resignation of the year 1968. It will not be proper, therefore, to insist on all the records of an old matter when the case of the respondents stands corroborated by the entry in the dak register and the circumstance arising from the fact that the appellant remained as a Sarpanch for a long time and that he contested the election of M.L.A.
12. In the alternative, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant should be granted retiral benefits as there is no limitation for granting pension. However, that is not his prayer in the plaint. He has asked for service benefits and not for retiral benefits. Therefore, it will not be proper for me to accept this prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant may, if so advised, take necessary steps for claiming the retiral benefits.
13. In view of the above reason this appeal is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed.