SURESH KUMAR Vs. SAINIK SCHOOL SOCIETY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The moot question to be adjudicated in this petition is whether the resignation tendered by the petitioner was a "forced resignation" as contended by the petitioner or was it a relinquishment of job at the instance of the petitioner out of his free will and own volition as contended by the respondents.

(2.) Evidently, the petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as a Sweeper, on contractual basis with the respondents, had vide communication dated 23.1.2014 (Annexure P1), expressed his intention to resign from the service and the same was duly accepted by the respondents vide communication dated 30.1.2014. However, in case the offer (Annexure P1) made by petitioner to resign is perused, it would be noticed that the petitioner had in fact given ten clear instances and examples where he had been illtreated and discriminated and felt that atrocities had been committed upon him. It was only account of these circumstances that the petitioner had in fact offered to resign from the job. However, surprisingly, the respondents, who are the "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India (Refer: All India Sainik Schools Employees Association v. Defence Minister-cum-Chairman Board of Governors, Sainik School, (1989) Supp. 1 SCC 205 ) did not even deem it appropriate to look into the grievances put forth by the petitioner and accepted his resignation, that too by terming it to be an act of relinquishment as would be evident from the letter dated 30.1.2014, relevant portion whereof reads as under:-

(3.) It is a well settled proposition of law that a forced resignation means a resignation voluntarily given by the employee, but is brought about by force, duress or in any other manner by the employer, i.e. by the act of the employer. In substance the contract of service comes to an end in such case by the action on the part of the employer.