Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3237 of 2010 Petitioner :- Anju Devi Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Purushottam Maurya Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
The petitioner has relied upon a very ancient judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Vs. Union of India decided on
18.4.1968. The law with regard to resignation has been explained
subsequently in other decisions of the Supreme Court as well as by this
Court reference whereof may be found in the case of Mrs. Rabia
Sultana Vs. A.M.U., Aligarh and others reported in 2006 (1) ESC 34.
The Supreme Court in an earlier decision in the case of Moti RamVs.
Param Dev and others reported in 1993(2) SCC 725 has held that
where resignation does not require any further action then the same is
complete after having been submitted by the person tendering the
resignation.
The resignation in the present case does not require acceptance as no
bilateral act is contemplated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the absence of rules
unless and until the resignation is accepted and intimated to the
petitioner, it will be presumed that the petitioner has not resigned.
The decisions referred to hereinabove indicates the law just to the
contrary and therefore the aforesaid submission cannot be accepted.
The petitioner is a Rozgar Sewak under the Scheme which does not
require the acceptance of a resignation . It is open to the petitioner to
unilaterally cease and waive his/her right to serve as such. The
resignation has been tendered voluntarily . It does not require any
acceptance and the jural relationship snaps. In such a situation, there is
no occassion for the petitioner to withdraw her resignation as
contended. The argument cannot be accepted.
The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.1.2010
mna