LAWS(P&H)-2003-9-157

PUNJAB STATE AND OTHERS Vs. MANOHAR LAL

Decided On September 17, 2003
Punjab State And Others Appellant
V/S
MANOHAR LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Punjab and others have filed the instant Regular Second Appeal against the judgment dated 28.3.1985 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, vide which he has reversed the judgment and decree dated 8.8.1984 passed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Bhatinda, vide which suit of the plaintiff, respondent herein, for declaration was dismissed.

(2.) On 29.6.1963, the respondent-plaintiff was appointed as Sub Inspector, Cooperative Societies in Patiala Division. He joined his duty at Dhuri on 16.9.1963. On 4.7.1968 he applied for casual leave for one day and thereafter, he did not join his duty. Subsequently on 16.8.1968, he submitted his resignation to Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patiala, which was to be accepted after the expiry of one month i.e. on 17.9.1968. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff did not come to the office to attend his duty. He alleged that his aforesaid resignation was not accepted and on 12.1.1972, he made an application for withdrawal of the aforesaid resignation, on which no decision was taken. After the expiry of more than nine years of the said application, he filed the instant suit on 4.10.1982 seeking declaration that he is in continuous service of the appellants-defendants as Sub Inspector, Cooperative Societies and is entitled for all emoluments pay and usual allowances admissible under the Rules from 1.7.1968 upto the date of filing of the suit.

(3.) The appellants-defendants contested the aforesaid suit on various grounds. It was pleaded that the respondent-plaintiff resigned from his post on 16.8.1968 and that the suit filed by him is barred by limitation. He served the department upto 4.7.1968 and thereafter, he never attended his duty. He was issued several letters by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, but those letters were received undelivered with the remarks of the postal department that he was avoiding to receive the letters. It was pleaded that the respondent-plaintiff was not entitled for any relief in the instant suit.