Delhi High Court - Orders
Dinesh Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 June, 2020
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Asha Menon
$-2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3369/2020
DINESH YADAV .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal and Mr. Jatin
Puniyani, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
ORDER
% 08.06.2020 [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
CM No.11937/2020 & CM No.11938/2020 (both for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per the extant rules.
2. The applications are disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.3369/2020
3. The petition impugns the order dated 30 th May, 2019 approving the acceptance of resignation of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Commandant, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) while posted at Anantnag in Jammu & Kashmir and seeks a mandamus to the respondents to accept the withdrawal of resignation tendered by the petitioner, purportedly in terms of Rule 26(4)(iii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
4. The counsel for the respondents appears on advance notice.
5. The counsel for the petitioner, along with the petition itself has filed dicta of this Court in Deepak Vs. Union of India 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3817. However having gone through the same, it appears that though the W.P.(C) No.3369/2020 Page 1 of 3 stand of CRPF before the Court then also, as today also, was that Rule 26(4)(iii) is not applicable to CRPF but on the basis of CRPF having allowed another personnel to withdraw the resignation, the petition was allowed.
6. In our prima facie opinion, the said judgment does not constitute a precedent and as far as another, stated to be similarly situated as the petitioner, having been permitted to withdraw the resignation, is concerned, it is settled position in law that the Constitution of India does not permit of any negative equality. Reference in this regard may be made to State of Haryana Vs. Ram Kumar Mann (1997) 3 SCC 321, Seceratary, Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Daulat Mal Jain (1997) 1 SCC 35, State of Punjab Vs. Dr. Rajeev Sarwal (1999) 9 SCC 240, Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Vs. Gulab Chand (2000) 10 SCC 656, Union of India Vs. Rakesh Kumar (2001) 4 SCC 309, Union of India Vs. International Trading Co. (2003) 5 SCC 437, Anand Buttons Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (2005) 9 SCC 164, Vishal Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2007) 11 SCC 172, Fuljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab (2010) 11 SCC 455 and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Achal Singh (2018) 17 SCC 578.
7. Rule 26(4) provides that the Appointing Authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in public interest on the conditions laid down therein.
8. We do not find any pleading of the petitioner to the effect that it is in public interest that the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw his resignation. The counsel for the petitioner in response has only drawn attention to Annexure-P9, being the recommendation of the CRPF to W.P.(C) No.3369/2020 Page 2 of 3 Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to permit the petitioner to withdraw the resignation. However the said recommendation also does not state what is the public interest in permitting the petitioner to withdraw his resignation. Else, it appears that an armed officer should not act with a fickle mind, as the petitioner has done in the present case i.e. when posted at Anantnag, Jammu & Kashmir, resign and thereafter, want to withdraw the resignation.
9. Though the grievance of the petitioner is that no decision has been taken by the MHA on his request for withdrawal of resignation but in the circumstances aforesaid, we are of the view that the matter needs consideration at the appropriate level and rather than disposing of the petition by directing a decision to be taken, we deem it appropriate to issue notice so that the considered stand of the respondents qua the matter is before the Court and which will indeed avoid further litigation of this kind.
10. Issue notice.
11. Notice is accepted by the counsel for the respondents.
12. Counter affidavit be filed within six weeks as sought.
13. We however make it clear that if the counter affidavit is not so filed, no further time shall be granted.
14. Rejoinder within two weeks thereafter.
15. List on 17th August, 2020.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
ASHA MENON, J.
JUNE 08, 2020 'gsr' W.P.(C) No.3369/2020 Page 3 of 3