Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.@mdashBrief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk cum Typist in the Sessions Division
Narnaul on 18.09.2009. While working as Additional Ahlmad in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Narnaul, the petitioner
applied for the post of Clerk cum Junior Data Entry Operator in Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak through proper channel. The petitioner
was duly selected for such post in the university. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application dated 06.01.2012 to the District and
Sessions Judge, Narnaul seeking resignation from service. Vide order dated 07.11.2012, the request made by the petitioner as regards resignation
was duly accepted. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 05.02.2013 at Annexure P-4, whereby his application seeking
withdrawal of his resignation and for being re-appointment on the post of Additional Ahlmad has been declined.
2. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order dated 05.02.2013 (Annexure P-4) cannot sustain as the same is a non
speaking order and no reasons have been assigned for declining the request of the petitioner seeking re-appointment. In support of such
submission counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 1993 (4) SCT 716. That apart,
counsel has also argued that there have been compelling reasons on account of which the petitioner had been forced to submit his initial request
seeking resignation from service. In this regard, counsel would refer to the application dated 19.12.2012 (Annexure P-3) submitted to the District
& Sessions Judge, Narnaul, wherein averments made to the effect that the father of the petitioner had suffered heart attack and had been taken in
hospital in Jaipur and it was on account of the financial condition of the family and mental tension that the request for resignation has been
submitted. It has been argued that such extreme circumstances, which were the basis of submitting the request for resignation have not been taken
into account while passing the impugned order dated 05.02.2013 (Annexure P-4).
3. Having heard counsel for the petitioner at length, I find that the claim of the petitioner is wholly misconceived.
4. An employee who chooses to resign from service and such resignation having been accepted may make an application for withdrawal of
resignation and claim reinstatement. Such a request and claim is covered under the relevant provisions of the Punjab Civil Services Rules i.e. Rule
7.5. The relevant provision reads in the following terms:
Rule 7.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules reads as under:
(1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past
service.
(2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether
temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies for pension.
(3) Interruption in service in a case falling under sub rule (2), due to the two appointments being a different stations, not exceeding the joining time
permissible under the rules of transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government employee, on the date of relief or by
the formal condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to him.
(4) The appointment authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in public interest on the following conditions, namely:
(i) That the resignation was tendered by the Government employee for some compelling reasons which did not involve any reflection on his integrity
efficiency or conduct and the request of a material change in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender his resignation.
(ii) That during the period intervening between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date from which the request for
withdrawal was made, the conduct of the person concerned was in no way improper.
(iii) That the period of absence from duty between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed
to resume duty as result of permission to withdraw the resignation is not more than ninety days.
(iv) That the aforementioned period of ninety days shall be observed in the manner that the employee concerned should put his application for
withdrawal of resignation within two months of being relieved and same should as far as possible, be processed within a period of one month; and
(v) that the post, which was vacated by the government employee on the acceptance of his resignation or any other comparable post, is available.
5. A perusal of the relevant provision would make it apparent that the Appointing Authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in
public interest subject to certain conditions, one of which is that the resignation was tendered by the concerned employee for some compelling
reasons which do not reflect on his integrity, efficiency or conduct. The rule also takes into account the situation, where such request would not
involve any change in circumstances which had originally compelled him to tender the resignation.
6. The claim of the petitioner would have to be examine in the light of such statutory provision. The application submitted by the petitioner seeking
resignation from service dated 06.11.2012 has been placed on record at Annexure P-1. Such application clearly spells of the reasons for which
the petitioner had sought resignation. The application clearly states that he had applied for the post of Clerk from Junior Data Entry Operator in
Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and it was in view of his selection and appointment with the University that the application seeking
resignation had been submitted.
7. The request for reinstatement and withdrawal of resignation dated 19.12.2012 refers to the health condition of his father. Such basis was not the
compelling circumstances on account of which the petitioner had submitted the application dated 06.11.2012 (Annexure P-1).
8. Clearly, there has been a change of mind that the petitioner is now seeking to revert back to his original employment. The statutory rule i.e. Rule
7.5 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules does not envisage any such request as has been made by the petitioner. Accordingly, I do not find any
infirmity in the impugned order dated 05.02.2013 at Annexure P-4, whereby his request for re-appointment on the post of Ahlmad has been
declined.
9. Even the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the decision in Suresh Kumar''s case (supra) is misplaced. In that case,
no order declining the request of the petitioner therein had been conveyed. That apart, the State Government had also not repelled the specific
contention of the petitioner therein that the similarly situated persons had been permitted to withdraw the resignation and allowed to continue on the
post held by them. Such judgment shall not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. For the reasons recorded above, there is not merit in the present
writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.