C.W.P.No.1144 of 2009 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.1144 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:
19. 11.2012 Surjit Kaur .Petitioner v.
Punjab Agriculture University and others .Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.H.N.S.Gill, Advocate for respondent No.3..Rajesh Bindal J.
The petitioner, who is widow of deceased-Khushpal Inder Singh, who was working as an Associate Professor Surgery in the Department of Vety.
Surgery and Radiology, C.O.V.S.of the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana, has approached this court for issuing a direction to the respondents to release the service benefits on account of service rendered by her deceased husband with the respondent-University.
The husband of the petitioner was an Associate Professor Surgery in the Department of Vety.
Surgery and Radiology, C.O.V.S.of the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana.
He applied for extra-ordinary leave from 26.4.2001 to 25.4.2003, which was granted.
He had furnished an undertaking (Annexure P-4) before proceeding on leave that in case he will not join back service after availing the aforesaid leave, then this undertaking can be treated as letter of his resignation.
On failure to join duty, his letter was treated as resignation, which was accepted vide order dated 23.10.2003, which is impugned in the present petition.
C.W.P.No.1144 of 2009 [2].Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the application filed by the husband of the petitioner for extension of leave was declined, he applied for pre-mature retirement vide application dated 21.8.2003.
During the pendency thereof, instead of accepting that application, the authorities passed the order on 23.10.2003 accepting the resignation, which was allegedly submitted by the husband of the petitioner in the form of an undertaking, with retrospective effect from 26.4.2003, the date on which the husband of the petitioner was to join service after availing the leave.
Once a request of pre-mature retirement was already pending with the authorities, they should have considered the same instead of accepting the resignation.
He further submitted that in case request of the husband of the petitioner for pre-mature retirement is accepted, she would be entitled to pensionary benefits, however, as the resignation was accepted, nothing has been paid to her.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that unless the order dated 23.10.2003 accepting the resignation of the deceased husband of the petitioner is set aside, nothing will be due to the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that as number of members of teaching faculty were going abroad by availing extra-ordinary leave for greener posture and were not returning back, a condition was being put while granting leave that in case of failure to join duty after expiry of the leave period, their undertaking shall be treated as resignation.
In the present case, the husband of the petitioner was granted leave from 26.4.2001 to 25.4.2003.
He died on 29.6.2008 but never joined back service.
He further submitted that unless the order dated 23.10.2003 accepting the resignation of the deceased husband of the petitioner is set aside, the petitioner cannot possibly get any relief.
The same has not been impugned in the petition and further even if considered impugned, the petition filed in the year 2009 is highly belated.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, there is no merit in the present petition.
The resignation of the husband of the petitioner was accepted on 23.10.2003 in terms of the condition laid down while granting him extra-ordinary leave on account of his non-joining C.W.P.No.1144 of 2009 [3].of service after availing the leave.
It could not be disputed that the petitioner does not get anything unless the aforesaid order is set aside, as in case of resignation, an employee or his family would not be entitled to any service benefits.
Though the petition has been cleverly drafted by merely praying for release of service benefits so as to give an apparent look of a simple case, but the fact remains that unless the order of the University accepting the resignation of the deceased husband of the petitioner is set aside and he is permitted to retire pre-maturely, the petitioner cannot possibly get any relief.
Even if the order dated 23.10.2003 is challenged at this stage or even considered challenged at the stage when the writ petition was filed, the same is highly belated.
For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed on account of delay and laches only.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 19.11.2012 mk C.W.P.No.1144 of 2009 [4].