ANITA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is made to the communication dtd. 31/10/2023 of the respondent no. 4/Manager, HR (Human Resources), State Infrastructure & Industrial Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Limited ("SIIDCUL"), by which the petitioner was informed that her resignation is approved by the Management as per request. The petitioner also seeks directions that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw her resignation notice dtd. 10/10/2023 and allow the petitioner to join on the post of Receptionist.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as Receptionist in SIIDCUL on 27/9/2016; she worked on the position; she was given additional work on multiple occasions. The events thereafter, which are necessary for adjudication of the petition are as follows:-

(3.) On behalf of the SIIDCUL, counter affidavit has been filed. According to the SIIDCUL, it is a Government of Uttarakhand enterprises, which is incorporated under the Companies Act. It the case of the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 that the resignation of the petitioner dtd. 10/10/2023 was duly accepted by the competent authority i.e. Managing Director, SIIDCUL; the communication of acceptance was made by the Manager (HR), SIIDCUL; The HR Department is designated for issuing communication of behalf of the higher authorities; there is no requirement under the law that the appointing authority must communicate such acceptance. Referring to Resignation Rules, 2023, in para 20 of the counter affidavit, the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 state that petitioner's interpretation is selective; Rule 5 of Resignation Rules, 2023 permits appointing authority to accept the resignation letter with shorter notice; the petitioner's reference on three months period is misplaced; Rule 5 of the Resignation Rules, 2003 provides rejection of resignation only under certain limited conditions, which do not exist in the present case.