LAWS(HPH)-2004-10-16

BRIJ RANI GOEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On October 11, 2004
Brij Rani Goel Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS giving rise to this writ petition are, that husband of the petitioner, late Shri Ghanshyam Goel was working as a Superintendent in the Cantonment Board, Subathu. He died on. 24.3.1984, Petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds initially as a clerk. She was promoted as LDC. In the month of July, 1995 she was working as Tax Clerk. Further case as projected in this writ petition is that she was suffering from hypertension and was undergoing treatment. Vide Annexure PB Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Subathu, District Solan, certified that she should avoid work which creates mental fatigue and mental tension. In view of her physical/mental health, it was advised that she should not pursue any regular job which creates mental fatigue and mental tension. This certificate is Annexure PB and is dated 15.7.1995. On 17th July, 1995, vide Annexure P -C, petitioner submitted her resignation. It was accepted on the same day i.e. 17.7.1995, For ready reference contents of her resignation letter are extracted, hereinbelow:

(2.) I do not want to remain in service and I, therefore, want to resign from the service of the Cantonment Board, Subathu.

(3.) SO far first two prayers were concerned, a Division Bench of this Court on 20.2.1997 rejected those in the following terms: Neither of these prayers can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not in dispute that the petitioner gave the resignation voluntarily on 17.7.1995 and it was accepted immediately by the authorities. Hence, the petitioner cannot seek a direction to the respondent -Board to permit her to withdraw the resignation. Hence the prayers are rejected.' Third prayer was disposed of in the following terms: 4. The petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation setting out all the relevant facts to the third respondent and within four weeks from the receipt of the said representation, the third respondent, shall decide the same and communicate the decision to the petitioner.