MADHURI SHARMA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Administrative Officer vide letter dated 12.2.1988 and was posted at New Delhi. In the month of December, 1999, the petitioner came to be transferred to Mumbai and was later on promoted as Deputy Manager and the petitioner worked as such at Mumbai till November, 2008. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was promoted as Manager vide office order dated 15.12.2008 and was then promoted and posted at Ahmedabad. The petitioner was informed about the likelihood of her transfer, as a result of this, she requested for posting at New Delhi or to retain at Mumbai instead of Ahmedabad since the husband of the petitioner was working in Indian Railways and it was possible for her husband to get transfer to Delhi so that the petitioner can stay stay with her family members. However, inspite of her efforts and requests, the petitioner was transferred to Ahmedabad. The petitioner accepted her transfer at Ahmedabad but on account of health issues as she being an asthma patient could not sustain the change in climate since she had to frequently travel from Ahmedabad to Mumbai as her family members are residing at Mumbai. On account of ill-health and travel from Ahmedabad to Mumbai frequently since her health was not permitting such situation, the petitioner tendered her resignation on 9.2.2010 on medical grounds. The petitioner then realised and under a medical guidance started feeling better and was becoming physically and mentally strong and by sending email on 12.7.2010, the petitioner has withdrawn her resignation and the email was sent to then C.R.M. (Ahmedabad) Shri P.C.Hota and Shri C.Singh, Chief Manager Personnel in the office of competent authority. It is the case of the petitioner that she had telephonically talked to Shri P.C.Hota, the then C.R.M. and Shri C. Singh, Chief Manager Personnel Head Office and it was orally confirmed that resignation was received and considered by the authority. The petitioner then remained under an impression that since the matter of withdrawal of resignation had been taken up at the head office, she was waiting for the response of authority but then having not responded in time, the petitioner made an attempt to resume her duties. On 9.8.2010, the petitioner approached the office at Ahmedabad. The petitioner was informed that resignation of the petitioner was accepted by respondent No.1 vide letter dated 27.7.2010. However, copy of the letter was not given. The petitioner then wrote letters and sent emails and reminders on 12.3.2011, 22.3.2011 and 30.3.2011 respectively intimating that she may be permitted to resume her duties as her resignation was withdrawn. However, the authority did not permit, as a result of this, left with no other alternative, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present petition.

(3.) The petition came to be entertained and was admitted on 15.3.2012 after hearing learned advocates and then has come up for final hearing in which, learned advocate, Mrs. Sangeeta Pahwa appeared for Mr.Navin K.Pahwa, learned advocate for the petitioner whereas the respondent authorities were represented by learned advocate, Mr. Dakshesh Mehta.