2000 INSC 0258
                                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                        Rajasthan State Electricity Board

                                                           Vs.

                                                 Brij Mohan Parihar

                                      (S.Saghir Ahmed and S. R. Babu JJ.)

                                                      21.02.2000

                                                       ORDER

S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The respondent was an employee of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. He submitted his letter
of resignation on October 10, 1983 in which it was mentioned that the resignation will be effective
from November 25, 1983. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench, both have recorded a
finding that the respondent offered himself for duty on August 22, 1987 through his letter of even
date. It was then that the Board made an order dated August 24, 1987 accepting the letter of
resignation with effect from November 25, 1983 and treating the respondent as relieved from the
forenoon of November 25, 1983. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High
Court have further held that a formal letter accepting the resignation should have been issued and
since it was not done, the respondent shall be deemed to have continued in service till August 22,
1987 when he reported to resume his duties.

4. We are not inclined to subscribe to this view. The respondent tendered his resignation vide his
letter dated October 10, 1983 in which it was mentioned clearly that the resignation would be
effective from November 25, 1983. He absented himself from duty for four years from that date and
reported only on August 22, 1987. This conduct itself on the part of the respondent is sufficient to
indicate that he treated himself to have resigned from the post which he was holding, with effect
from November 25, 1983, particularly when he himself thereafter demanded payment of gratuity
and other post-retirement benefits.

5. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the finding could not have been recorded by the
learned single Judge or the Division Bench that the respondent shall be deemed to be continuing in
service till August 22, 1987.

6. That being so, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgments passed by the single Judge and the
Division Bench. In the particular circumstances of the case, the respondent shall be treated to have
resigned from the post in question with effect from November 25, 1983. All retirement benefits as
admissible under the rules shall be paid to him by the appellant Board possibly within three months.
7. There will be no order as to costs.