Bombay High Court
Juned Khuram Roufuddin vs The President on 4 September, 2014
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
WP/2624/2001
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2624 OF 2001
Juned Khuram Roufuddin
Aged 32 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Gaffar Khan Chal Court Road,
Old Jalna, Jalna. ..Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The President,
Jamiat Ul Muslimeen Social and
Education Society, Old Jalna,
Jalna.
2. The Secretary,
Jamiat Ul Muslimeen Social and
Education Society, Old Jalna,
Jalna.
3. The Head Master,
Allomah Iqbal Urdu High School,
Old Jalna, Jalna.
4. The Education Officer (S),
Zilla Parishad, Jalna. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Amol B. Chalak h/f Shri S B Talekar,
Advocate for Respondents 1 to 3 : Shri R D Mane,
Respondent 4 : Dismissed.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: September 04, 2014
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. By an order dated 23.10.2002, this petition was admitted. Interim relief was refused to the petitioner.
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2014 23:48:37 :::WP/2624/2001 2
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Jr. Clerk by the respondent -
management by the order dated 12.6.1995. The order indicates that he was granted permanency from the very first day. This is not disputed by the management. The services of the petitioner were approved for the academic years 1995-96 and 1996-97. It is admitted that after 1997, neither his proposal was forwarded nor did the petitioner have an approval from the Department. Contention is that once he has been appointed on permanent basis, approval on year to year basis was not required to be obtained.
The petitioner, therefore, preferred a representation to the Education Department. The petitioner further contends that salary was also withheld.
3. Since the petitioner alleged oral termination with effect from 21.6.1999, he preferred Appeal No.210 of 1999 before the School Tribunal.
Interim relief, in the nature of stay to the oral termination, was granted on 29.9.1999, which was subsequently vacated by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.972 of 1999 which was rejected and as such, there was no interim relief in favour of the petitioner till the disposal of the appeal.
4. The petitioner contends that at the time of his appointment, the management got his signatures on several blank papers as well as on blank cheques. It was lateron projected that the petitioner had voluntarily resigned on 21.6.1999, which came to be accepted by a resolution passed by the respondent dated 21.6.1999. The petitioner fairly concedes that the ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2014 23:48:37 ::: WP/2624/2001 3 entire resignation letter has been written by him in his own handwriting, but contradicts the date on the plea that he has not written the date. The blank cheque was utilised against the petitioner by the management for withdrawing an amount of Rs.70,000/-, which was said to be a compromise amount paid by the respondent on 21.6.1999. On these grounds, the appeal came to be dismissed by the Tribunal, vide its impugned judgment dated 17.2.2001.
5. The petitioner has relied upon Rule 40 of the the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 ("MEPS Rules" for short) to buttress his submission that three months' notice has to be given by the employee while resigning. If the management desires to waive the notice period, then three months' salary will have to be paid by the management to the employee.
6. Shri Mane, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that this defence of the petitioner is raised for the first time in this petition. When the management filed its written statement, the petitioner had options available to contradict the said contentions and take such effective steps to contradict the date on the resignation letter, as well as handwriting on the cheque. His writ petition was rejected by order dated 21.9.1999 by this Court, on the ground that the disputed questions and the contentious issues raised by either parties could be gone into by the competent Court and not by this Court. Despite the said order, the petitioner has not taken effective steps as regards the handwriting of date ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2014 23:48:37 ::: WP/2624/2001 4 on the resignation as well as the cheque. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed.
7. I find in this case that there are certain undisputed facts like the resignation bearing the handwriting of the petitioner, the petitioner having failed to contradict the contention of the respondent before the Tribunal by not filing a rejoinder or an additional affidavit as well as the petitioner having not sought reference of the documents to a handwriting expert to disprove his handwriting on the date and the contents of the cheque.
8. In the instant case, the petitioner's resignation was accepted forthwith but three months' salary, in lieu of notice was not paid to him.
He has disputed the story of compromise between the parties. It is stated that when the management filed its written statement before the Tribunal adopting the story of resignation and compromise, the petitioner did not contradict the said contention either by filing an additional affidavit or by filing a rejoinder. In short, the contentions of the respondent - management were not contradicted by the petitioner.
9. It is also conceded that the petitioner did not request for referring the resignation letter to the handwriting expert so as to find out whether the handwriting in the form of the date on the resignation letter is attributable to the petitioner. It is, however, submitted that the respondent - management has utilised the blank papers bearing signatures of the petitioner and blank cheques bearing signatures of the petitioner, in ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2014 23:48:37 ::: WP/2624/2001 5 support of a false story of resignation and compromise.
10. In this backdrop, I am unable to allow the petitioner to reopen all these aspects after about 14 years and more so in view of the fact that the Tribunal which was competent to go into these contentious and disputed issues, was not called upon to do so by the petitioner.
11. The petitioner has relied upon the reported judgments of this Court in the cases of Barshi Education Society Vs. Ashok Ganesh Kulkarni and others [2004 (5) Bom. C.R. 772], Siddheshwar Kreeda Mandal Vs. Uttam Kisanrao Shrikhande and others [2009 (1) ALL MR 78] and Sayyed Maksood Ali Sayyed Roshid Ali Vs. Uruj-e-Urdu Education Society [2011 (4) Mh.L.J. 952].
12. In all these matters, Rule 40 of the MEPS Rules has been considered.
It is observed that Rule 40 is aimed at avoiding unscrupulous managements getting rid of employees by obtaining signatures on blank papers and typing the contents of the resignation letter on such blank papers. This issue, in my view, is no more res integra. Resignation under Rule 40 ought to be in the handwriting of the employee along with the date. Copy of the same is to be supplied to the management and one copy is to be retained by the employee. Notice period is intrinsic.
13. In the instant case, the record before the Tribunal, which was not disputed by bringing contrary evidence on record, is that the resignation letter was in the handwriting of the petitioner. This aspect is admitted.
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2014 23:48:37 :::WP/2624/2001 6 The date on the resignation is also handwritten. An amount of Rs.70,000/-
has been credited to the Bank account of the petitioner by the respondent as a matter of compliance of the terms of compromise. The Education Department was intimated in writing about the compromise and resignation of the petitioner.
14. The petitioner is now before this Court with the case that the date of resignation is not written by him, he has not received Rs.70,000/- towards the compromise amount as the same has been withdrawn from his account by the management and that Rule 40 of the MEPS Rules is not complied with.
15. In the peculiar facts of this case as recorded herein above, I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that notwithstanding the compromise, resignation and forthwith payment of compromise amount, the respondent - management was under an obligation to follow the notice period of 3 months.
16. It is trite law that the notice period in cases of resignation is aimed at allowing the employee to rethink on his act of having submitted a resignation and that the said employee is at liberty to withdraw the same.
Even after the management accepts the resignation, the employee is relieved after the notice period. However, by an exception in cases where such a compromise has been arrived at or a request is made to accept the resignation forthwith, that the employer can proceed to accept the ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2014 23:48:37 ::: WP/2624/2001 7 resignation. This act is permissible only in peculiar circumstances. The judgments on which the petitioner has placed reliance, would not be of any assistance to him, in view of the distinguishable facts and circumstances, recorded herein above.
17. In this backdrop, I am unable to accept the case put forth by the petitioner, as noted herein above. The petition is, therefore, devoid of merits and, therefore, is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...
akl ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2014 23:48:37 :::