The Telangana State Wakf Board v. MD Dastagir
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-01-02. The Telangana State Wakf Board v. MD Dastagir. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3318 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT APPEAL No. 654 OF 2022 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent f iled against the order dated 27 . 09. 2022 in Writ Petition No. 24607 ot 2022 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. The Telangana State Wakf Board, Haj House, Razzaq Manzil, Nampally, Hyderabad, represented by its Chairman 2. The Chief Executive Officer, The Telangana State Wakf Board, Haj House, Razzaq Manzil, Nampally, Hyderabad 3. The Officer on Special Duty-ll, The Telangana State Wakf Board, Haj House' Razzaq Manzil, Nampally, Hyderabad ... APPELLANTS/RESPON OENTS AND MD Dastagir, S/o Late [/ohd Qasim, aged about 48 years, R:/o 10-'1 11/1' Brahmanwadi, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District 501218 I ...
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT l lA NO: 1 OF 2022 I Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated I t ! in the affidavit frled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to I stay the operation of the Order Passed by the Honble Justice Smt. P. MADHAVI DEVI in W. P. No. 24607 0l 2022, daled: 2710912022. I Counsel for the Appellants: SRI G. VIDYA SAGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING MT. ABU AKRAM I Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. MIRZA MAHMOOD ALI BAIG I The Court made the following: JUDGMENT I I IION'BLE SHRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHNVILI AND HON'BLE SIIRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJI. ]SI{WAR IL\O w. . N 4 of 2022 UDGMENT: (l'er I lot'lth Sti Jnrit lbltint lAnar. \'lm,iL) Aggrieved by the order dated 27. 09. 2022 passed in \fl. P. No. 24607 of 2022 by the learned Single Judge, the presenr writ appeal has been preferred. 2. Fleard Sri G.
Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Abu Akram, leamed counsel for the appellants and Sri Mirza Mahmood Ali Baig, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. It is the case of the appellants that the respondent was ! working as Superintendent and he has tendered resignation i I on 07. 02. 2022 and the appellants have accepted the said I I I resignation uide leuer dated 19. 02. 2022 wtth effect from I I 07. 02. 2022 and accordingly, relieved I the respondent from service. Therefore, the respondent has submitted a I I representation I on 16. 03. 2022 seeking ro permir to withdraw i his resignation. As the resignation was already accepted, the appellants have not pennitted the respondent to join duty and accordingly, passed rejecdon order on 30. 04. 2A22. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the respondent has tMrthout filed the present writ petition. appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants, leamed Single Judge uitle order darcd27. 09.
2022 allowed the said writ petition by setting aside the impugned rejection order dated 3a'04'2022 and also set aside the acceptance of resignation dated 19. 02. 2022 and directed the appellants to continue the respondent in service as Superintendent with all consequential benefits. Flence, the present writ appeal' 4. Leamed Senior C-ounsel appearing for the appellans had placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex C-ourt in Reserue lJank oJ Intlid ard anotlter tt. r. Ccci/ Dernis Soktnrun and anothey' and contended that when once the resignation is accepted, the question of withdrawing the said resignation is ' (2004) 9 scc 46r l not permissible and the respondent has tendered I r i unconditional resignation uitle letter dared 01 . 02. 2a22 md, I the I I appellants have I accepted the same on 19. 02. 2022 and the I l leamed Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petirion by directing the appellants to conrinue rhe respondent as Superintendent with all consequential benefits.
Leamed counsel had further placed reliance on rhe judgment I of the Apex C-oun in Singh Jatpa/ as. Sumitra NIabEan(SMl-) and anothel and contended that there is no time prescribed for accepting the resignation and when ir comes to voluntary retiremenr, some rime limit has prescribed for accepting such resignation and hence the appellants were justified in accepring the resignation submitted by the respon dent ajrle proceedings dated 19. 02. 2022 andthe respondent was uying to withdraw the resignation after it has been accepted. V4ren once the relationship of master and servant between the appellants and respondent has come to an end, the ' 12oo+y,,r s{'c sz: question of continuing the respondent as Superintendent does not arise. Learned counsel had further piaced reliance on the judgment of the Apex C-oun rn Uco llank and other. r us. . \'anwar MaP and contended that when once the resignation is accepted, the question of withdrawing the said resignation does not arise.
Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Leamed counsei appearing for the respondent had contended that in the alleged resignation letter dated 07 . 02. 2022, the respondent has clearly stated that he is going to submit his resignation for the post of Superintendent, but he never stated that he is resigning from the post of Superhtendent. fu the respondent was suffering from varlou ailments, he submitted a letter on a7. 02-2022 expressing his intention to resign in future, but the said letter datedOl . OZ. ZO22 cannot be treated as resignation letter and ' (2004\ 4 scc 4t2 the appellants have accepted the said letter as if the I I i respondent has tendered his resignation on 07. 2. 2022 md the appellants have also accepred the same uitle proceedings dated t9. 2. 2022 wrth rerrospecrive effect, which is not I permissible as per Rule 30 of the Stare and Subordinate I I Service Rules.
Therefore, leamed Single was justified Judge l in setting aside the rejection order passed by the appellants l I and rightly directed the appellants ro conrinue the I respondent as Superintendent. Therefore, there are no merirc in the v,rit appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Flaving considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel I on either side, this Coun is of the view that a perusal of the resignation letter dated 07. 02. 2022 makes it I very clear that the respondent had submitted the said letrcr I I stating thar he is going to submit his resignation. \When the I I respondent has not submitted his resignation ona7. 02. 2a22, the appellants were not justified in accepting the said r I- resignation letter ui,*t proceedings dated 79. 02. 2022 md the appellans were also not jrstified in accepting the resignation u,ith retrospective effect i. e. , with effect from 07 -02. 2A22.
A pensal of Rule 30 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules makes it clear that resignation cannot be accepted with retrospective effect, unless he is on duty, from the date on rfiich he is relieved of his duties in pursuance of such acceptance and in case he is on leave, from the date of communication of such accePtance to the member or if the said authority so direcs, from the date of expiry of leave' A perusal of the alleged resignation letter also would make it very clear that the respondent is no where stated that he is resigning, but he expressed his intention to resign in future ' Flowever, such statement of the letter dated 072'2022 cannot be treated as resignation. The respondent has expressed his opinion that he is going to submit his resignation only. Therefore, the leamed Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ in favour of the Petition 1 respondenr. Hence, this Coun is not inclined I to interfere l with the order passed by rhe leamed Single l Judge. I i ! 7.
Accordingly, the \7rit Appeal is dismissed. No cosrs. I Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. l SD/. K. SHYLESHI DEPUTY KECISIRAR //TRUE COPY// sEcnoMfFrcER i To, 1. One CC to Mr. ABU AKRAM, Advocate [OPUC] [OPUC] I\4AHMOOD ALI BAIG' Advocate 2. One CC to Mr. MIRZA 3. Two CD CoPies MP BS 5 tt HIGH COURT DATED:0210112024 STAI 1 $t G. ( e v o 202[ r_) 0 7 i:i] * JUDGMENT 2022 WA. No. 654 of APPEAL DISMISSING THE WRIT WITHOUT COSTS a h c, Y
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.