MIHIR KUMAR PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ applications which arise from a judgment passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 2713 (C) of 1994 have been heard tog -ether and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioner in OJC No. 10240/99 was appointed as an Assistant Surgeon under the Health and Family Welfare Department with effect from 16.12.1976. He tendered his resignation on 17.11.1982 on account of his personal difficulties, but there was no order by the appointing authority showing that his resignation was accepted. The petitioner communicated through various letters asking the appointing authority to accept his resignation, but no order was received from their end. The petitioner seems to have proceeded on leave for indefinite period. Even then, the authorities did not give him a place of posting. It appears that the petitioners submitted an application by expressing his intention to withdraw the resignation, a copy of which was annexed as Annexure -9 to the Original Application before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2713(C) of 1994 filed on 17.1.1994. Thereafter also it did not evoke any response from the employer. Thereafter the Tribunal after hearing the petitioner and the State disposed of the matter by directing the authorities to give the petitioner a posting order after condoning the period of absence of thirteen years. It has also been further indicated, in the order that since the petitioner has not worked during the above period, he shall not be permitted to draw salary for the said period. As such the Tribunal though allowed the application, yet deprived the petitioner of back wages. Hence the petitioner has preferred the writ application in OJC No. 10240/99. The State has also filed OJC No. 10941/ 2000 challenging the order of the Tribunal.

(3.) UPON hearing the submissions and counter submissions advanced by both parties and also on perusal of the judgment impugned before us, we find that when the applicant submitted his resignation and it was not accepted by the employer, it would have been appropriate for the employer at least to fix up the headquarters and initiate departmental action against the petitioner for remaining absent from duty. They did not take action till the matter was agitated before the Tribunal. Even till date no posting has been given to the applicant. In the above back -ground, it is to be assumed that due to the fault of the Government, no action could be precipitated as regards decision on the resignation letter. Therefore, in this back -ground, the Tribunal was justified in drawing a conclusion that the petitioner is deemed to be in service.