DINESH PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31. 7. 2000, by which the resignation of the petitioner has been accepted inspite of its withdrawal prior to the date of acceptance.

(2.) THOUGH the matter was listed today after notice but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it was heard finally.

(3.) IN Union of INdia & Anr. vs. Wg. Comm. T. Parthasarthy (11), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even if the policy of the Government provides that once the resignation is submitted by the employee and he was full aware of the fact that he cannot seek for cancellation of the application, such policy will be destructive of the right of the employee in law to withdraw his request for premature retirement before it ever becomes operative and effective and effected termination of his status and relation with department. The Court observed as under:- "the reliance placed upon the so-called policy decision which obligated the respondent to furnish a certificate to the extent that he was fully aware of the fact that he cannot later seek for cancellation of the application once made for premature retirement cannot, in our view, be destructive of the right of the respondent, in law, to withdraw his request for premature retirement before it ever becomes operative and effective and effected termination of his status and relation with the department. When the legal position is that much clear, it would be futile for the appellants to base their rights on some policy decision of the department or a mere certificate of the respondent being aware of a particular position which has no sanctity or basis in law to destroy such rights which otherwise inhered in him and available in law. No such deprivation of a substantive right to a person can be denied except on the basis of any statutory provision or rule or regulation. There being none brought to our notice in this case, the claim of the appellants cannot be countenanced in our hands. Even that apart the reasoning of the High Court that the case of the respondent will not be covered by the type or nature of the mischief sought to be curbed by the so-called policy decision also cannot be said to suffer any conformity in law, to warrant our interference. "