SURESH KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was working as a Clerk in the Treasury Officer, Karnal tendered his resignation from service on April 23, 1990. He also deposited three months' pay in lieu of notice. His request was accepted vide order dated April 25, 1991. He contested elections to the State Legislative Assembly. Having lost the elections, he submitted an application dated June 27, 1990 (Annexure P-3) seeking permission to withdraw the resignation. It is averred that he sent a reminder on Sept. 16, 1991. Having heard nothing in reply, he has approached this Court through the present writ petition with a prayer that the respondents be directed to accept his request. It has been averred that a similar request made by one Mr. Ram Singh of Revenue Department in the Government of Haryana has already been accepted. It has been further pointed out that the State Government has issued instructions vide letter dated Oct. 21, 1980 in which guidelines have been laid down. A copy of these instructions has been produced as Annexure P-6 with the writ petition. It is averred that the action of the respondent is arbitrary and suffers from the vice of discrimination.

(2.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Deputy Director, Treasuries and Accounts Department, Haryana. It has been averred that the petitioner was appointed as a clerk vide letter dated Jan. 4, 1974 and had joined as such on Jan. 14, 1974. On receipt of his request for permission to resign from Government service on the ground that "he wanted to contest the Assembly election for Nilokheri...." alongwith a sum of Rs. 6, 342.00 on account of three months' pay, the respondents had permitted the petitioner to resign. He was relieved of his duties on April 26, 1991. Thereafter, he submitted a representation dated June 27, 1991. It was considered in the light of instructions dated May 4, 1960 and Oct. 21, 1980. It was decided not to take him back in service. Accordingly, the representation was filed. It has been further averred that "since there were no overwhelming reason to take him back in service and to condone the broken period in his service, he was not allowed to withdraw his resignation by Government." With regard to the petitioner's averment that persons similarly situated have been permitted to withdraw their resignations and that one Mr. Ram Singh of the Revenue Department was allowed to do so, vide order dated Dec. 31, 1991 (Annexure P-7), the respondents have averred that "para 9 of the petition is denied for want of knowledge." On these premises, it is claimed that there is no merit in this petition and it may be dismissed.

(3.) The petitioner has filed a rejoinder and reiterated the averments made in the petition. Copies of various commendation certificates and awards given to the petitioner have also been produced to show that he has had a consistently good record of service.