STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs. PARMOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed holding that memo dated 21.3.2005 issued by the appellant-State accepting his resignation w.e.f. 1.7.2002 was illegal and he continues in service and further the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2010 of the Ist Appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by the defendant-State was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent joined service of the appellants on 7.2.1989 on ad hoc basis. His services were regularized w.e.f. 17.1.1996 allotting him code No.6809. Service conditions of the plaintiff were governed under the provisions of Punjab Civil Services Rules. Plaintiff-respondent did his post-graduation during the year 1995-96 and bounded himself with the department to serve the State at least for 5 years. However, due to adverse family circumstances, he resigned from service w.e.f. 1.7.2002. However, he was directed to deposit Rs. 2,80,538/- as bond money and three months pay for taking further necessary action on the resignation vide letter dated 4.2.2003. The plaintiff-respondent never deposited the aforesaid amount and he withdrew his resignation on 17.2.2003. However, the resignation of the plaintiff-respondent was accepted by the State on 21.3.2005. Thereafter, the appellant directed the respondent to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- as bond money and three months pay. Thereafter, again a demand was raised for a sum of Rs. 2,80,538/- and three months pay. It is the case of the plaintiff-respondent that he was not being given the posting orders w.e.f. 17.2.2003 which was against the statutory provisions and hence, the present suit.

(3.) The suit was contested by the appellants rasing various preliminary objections. On merits, the averments made in the suit with regard to service particulars were admitted. However, it was stated that since the plaintiff-respondent has resigned and the same could not have been withdrawn beyond 90 days and such resignation having been accepted vide order dated 21.3.2005 w.e.f. 1.7.2002, the suit was liable to be dismissed.