Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.38 seconds)
Deepak Verma vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 October, 2017 cites

Lady Cadet Shivanjali Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors. on 26 March, 2012

32. Counsel for the petitioner had made reference to decision of this Court dated 26th March, 2012 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1143/2011, Lady Cadet Shivanjali Sharma versus Union of India and Others. In the said case, the Lady Cadet had suffered an injury on account of a fall in the Academy. In spite of treatment in the Military Hospital, she did not get relief as the injury was misdiagnosed. The Court held that the cadet had resigned under compulsion so as to avoid aggravation of the injury and to pursue treatment privately. The petitioner therein had fractured the last WP(C) 12171/2016 Page 14 of 17 vertebra of her backbone, commonly called the tailbone, which was diagnosed after she had left the Academy. These facts were highlighted in the statutory complaint to the Chief of Army Staff with the request that the petitioner therein should be detailed for training in the next course. However, the request was rejected on the ground that physically and mentally, the petitioner therein was far below the required standards and was an unfit cadet since she had repeatedly reported sick on experiencing the strain of the daily routine at the Academy. The facts of the said case would reveal that the petitioner therein had resigned on 30 th October, 2010 and the letter deemed as a request for revocation of resignation was dated 16th November, 2010. The petitioner had been allowed to go home on 2 nd November, 2010. The gap or time difference between the letter of resignation and reinstatement was less than thirty days. The facts, therefore, were different and distinct.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - A Kumar - Full Document

Raj Kumar vs Union Of India on 18 April, 1968

This judgment refers to the communication of acceptance, an issue which has been examined and dealt with in Raj Kumar versus Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 180. The Supreme Court held that where a public servant has sent a letter of resignation, his services would normally stand terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation was accepted by the appropriate authority. In the absence of any law or rule governing the conditions of service to the contrary, it would not be open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after acceptance. However, till the resignation was accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance, the public servant concerned has locus poenitentiae to withdraw the resignation, but not thereafter. At the same time, undue delay in intimating the public servant concerned may justify the inference that the resignation had not been accepted. However, where the resignation has been accepted within a short period, but the order was not immediately implemented to relieve the applicant, the public servant cannot profit by the delay in intimating acceptance or in relieving him from duties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 79 - J C Shah - Full Document

Chand Mal Chayal vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 September, 2006

Similarly, the Supreme Court in Chand Mal Chayal versus State of Rajasthan, (2006) 10 SCC 258 has held that after acceptance of resignation, the jural relationship between the employer and employee ceases and thereafter the employee cannot claim withdrawal of resignation or reinstatement. This judgment was with reference to Rajasthan Subordinate Courts‟ Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 74 - H K Sema - Full Document
1