AVINASH KUMARI Vs. PUNJAB STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff -Appellant, against the judgment and decree dated 3rd April, 1999, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby the appeal, filed by the Defendants, was accepted, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, were set aside and the suit of the Plaintiff was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that Smt. Avinash Kumari, Plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration against the Defendant -Respondents, with the allegations that she was appointed as Guide -cum -Clerk in Tourism Complex, Ropar, on 25th June, 1976 under the Defendants and that lateron, the S. S. S. Board had regularised her services on 22nd December, 1977 and as such, on 22nd December, 1977, the Plaintiff had become a regular employee of the Defendants. It was alleged that on 7th September, 1987, on account of certain circumstances, the Plaintiff submitted her resignation and that on 7th December, 1987, she had withdrawn her resignation. It was alleged that the Civil Services Rules were applicable to the Plaintiff and that under Rules 7.5 and 4.11 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, the Plaintiff was entitled to withdraw her resignation within a period of 90 days and that the Plaintiff had withdrawn her resignation well within the said period of 90 days. It was alleged that after the withdrawal of the resignation, the Plaintiff had joined her duty in the Information Centre, Amritsar, where she was posted at the time when she had submitted her resignation. It was alleged that the concerned official had recommended the withdrawal of the resignation, - -vide letter dated 8th December, 1987. It was alleged that the Plaintiff had not been paid the salary and that a letter dated 9th February, 1988 was written in that regard, with subsequent reminders. It was alleged that the Director had recommended the case of the Plaintiff to the Government and the Secretary to Government had sought certain information from the Director, but Shri Kuldeep Singh, an employee, working with the Director, had concealed the facts and did not give any information and did not bring the facts to the notice of the Director. It was further alleged that even otherwise, the Director had the authority to permit the withdrawal of the resignation and in any case, the Director had recommended the case to the State Government. It was alleged that finally, a registered letter dated 14th March, 1989 was sent in this regard to the Defendant -department, but still of no avail. It was accordingly prayed that a decree for declaration be passed to the effect that the Plaintiff was in service of the Defendants as Senior Clerk and was entitled to the salary w.e.f. 7th December, 1987 and other benefits.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed various issues. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the Plaintiff, holding that the Plaintiff was entitled to the relief of injunction. It was also held that the Defendants had failed to prove that the Court did not have territorial jurisdiction. Resultantly, the suit of the Plaintiff was decreed. However, the appeal, filed by the Defendants, was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, the judgment and decree of the trial Court, were set aside and the suit of the Plaintiff was dismissed, holding that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the declaration, prayed for, that she continued to be in service or was entitled to the salary w.e.f. 7th December, 1987 onwards. It was also held that the Courts at Ropar had no territorial jurisdiction and the finding of the trial Court to the contrary, was set aside. However, it was held that the Civil Suit, having remained pending since 1991, it would not be in the interest of justice now to order the return of the plaint to the Plaintiff, for presentation before the competent Court. Reliance in this regard was placed on the law laid down by a Division Bench judgment of this Court, reported as Rattan Cloth House v. Anoop Udai Works 1998(2) RCR (Civil) 316. Resultantly, the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree, passed by the trial Court, were set aside and the suit of the Plaintiff was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, the Plaintiff filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court.