SURJIT KAUR Vs. PUNJAB AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is widow of deceased-Khushpal Inder Singh, who was working as an Associate Professor Surgery in the Department of Vety. Surgery and Radiology, C.O.V.S. of the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana, has approached this court for issuing a direction to the respondents to release the service benefits on account of service rendered by her deceased husband with the respondent-University.

(2.) The husband of the petitioner was an Associate Professor Surgery in the Department of Vety. Surgery and Radiology, C.O.V.S. of the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. He applied for extra-ordinary leave from 26.4.2001 to 25.4.2003, which was granted. He had furnished an undertaking (Annexure P-4) before proceeding on leave that in case he will not join back service after availing the aforesaid leave, then this undertaking can be treated as letter of his resignation. On failure to join duty, his letter was treated as resignation, which was accepted vide order dated 23.10.2003, which is impugned in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the application filed by the husband of the petitioner for extension of leave was declined, he applied for pre-mature retirement vide application dated 21.8.2003. During the pendency thereof, instead of accepting that application, the authorities passed the order on 23.10.2003 accepting the resignation, which was allegedly submitted by the husband of the petitioner in the form of an undertaking, with retrospective effect from 26.4.2003, the date on which the husband of the petitioner was to join service after availing the leave. Once a request of pre-mature retirement was already pending with the authorities, they should have considered the same instead of accepting the resignation. He further submitted that in case request of the husband of the petitioner for pre-mature retirement is accepted, she would be entitled to pensionary benefits, however, as the resignation was accepted, nothing has been paid to her. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that unless the order dated 23.10.2003 accepting the resignation of the deceased husband of the petitioner is set aside, nothing will be due to the petitioner.