GANGADHAR BALWANT JAGTAP Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to fix his salary and not to initiate any recovery proceedings without fixing his salary. He also prays for quashing of Annexure-J, dated 25th May, 1981. The petitioner was appointed as Managing Director of respondent No.4 - Co-operative Society by Annexure-A, dated 21st February, 1977. later, respondent No.1 took over the administration of respondent No.4 by exercising the powers under section 3 of the Sugar Undertakings (Taking over of Management) Act, 1978 (for short, "Act"). On such taking over, the petitioner was appointed as Custodian of respondent No.4 by Annexure-C, dated 24th April, 1980. The grievance of the petitioner is that while he was continuing in the capacity of Custodian, his services were terminated by Annexure-J, dated 25th May, 1981 by accepting his resignation dated 14th November, 1980. It is the further the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 has instituted proceedings before the Co-operative Court for recovery of certain amounts, which, according to the petitioner, is not lawful; particularly when his prayer for fixation of pay is pending with respondent No.2. He maintains that his termination by Annexure-J, dated 25th May, 1981 is improper, as, according to him, the purported resignation was withdrawn by him on the same day by sending an original of Annexure-E Telegram dated 14th November, 1980.

(2.) Shri Shyam Bissa on behalf of Shri Anup Mohta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the very termination by accepting the resignation was not proper; particularly when by Annexure-E Telegram dated 14th November, 1980, the petitioner had withdrawn his resignation. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the acceptance of the resignation itself was only on 25th May, 1981, whereas the petitioner had, by the telegram, withdrawn his resignation on 14th November, 1980 itself. It is also argued by the learned counsel that though Annexure-H Memo, dated 31st December, 1980 was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner had filed his written statement vide Annexure-I, dated 9th January, 1981, respondent No.1 terminated the services of the petitioner purporting to act on the resignation submitted by him.

(3.) Shri R.S.Sundaram, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Shri P.D.Kothari, learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.2 and 3, argue that even as per the first appointment order dated 21st February, 1977 at Annexure-A. the petitioner was appointed only for a period of three months and though the petitioner was entitled to have the said appointment extended, even as per Annexure-I representation dated 9th January, 1981, the extension was only upto 30th November, 1980. Consequently, irrespective of the question whether the acceptance of the resignation was proper or not he was liable to be terminated with effect from 30th November, 1980, the petitioner cannot claim reinstatement.