Wednesday, September 28, 2011

OA No.386 / 2008






S. Srinivas Kumar,
S/o late R. Shamanna,
Aged about 37 years,
Earlier working as Data Entry Operator (DEO),
At Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation,
II Floor, CMC Building, Begur Road,
Bommanahalli, Bangalore-560 068.
Presently r/at No.8, 6th Cross,
Panduranganagar, Bannerghatta Road,
Bangalore – 560 076. -------------------------------Applicant
(By Advocate M/s. P.S. Rajagopal Associates)


1. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I,
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan,
No.13, Rajaram Mohanroy Road,
Bangalore – 560 025.

2. Sub-Regional Officer,
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation,
II Floor, CMC Building, Begur Road,
Bommanahalli, Bangalore – 560 068.

3. Union of India
By its Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Labour,
Sharamashakthi Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001.

4. Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
No.13, Bikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi. ----------------Respondents
(By Advocates S/Shri P.S. Dinesh Kumar for R-1,2 & 4 and
M.V. Rao, Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel for R-3)


Hon’ble Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :

This application is filed against the order of the Respondent No.1 dated 24.10.2007 (Annexure-A/11), relieving from duties the applicant, who is a Data Entry Operator Gr.’C’ in the Office of the Sub-Regional Officer, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, Bangalore,

2. Briefly, the case of the applicant is that on 24.08.2007, he had submitted his resignation letter to Respondent No.2 requesting the authorities to condone the notice period of three months for accepting the resignation which was to be acted upon by the respondents within a reasonable time. No communication was received by the applicant for nearly two months there from. By representation dated 19.10.2007, addressed to Respondent No.2, the applicant withdrew his resignation letter. (Annexure-A/9). The same was received by the office of Respondent No.2 on 22.10.2007. However, the applicant was issued with an order dated 24.10.2007 by the 1st Respondent stating that the resignation tendered by the applicant has been accepted with effect from 24.10.2007 (AN) and he stands relieved of his duties from 24.10.2007 (AN).

3. Heard Shri Putte Gowda of M/s. P.S. Rajagapal Associates, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri P.S. Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for Respondents No.1,2 & 4 and Shri M.V. Rao, the learned Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has mainly made the following points.

The representation of the applicant dated 19.10.2007 withdrawing his letter of resignation was received by the head of office, i.e., Respondent No.2 on 22.10.2007. In the said representation the applicant has expressed his repentance for submitting the resignation letter and has also requested the department not to accept his resignation. Even prior to this letter, the applicant had submitted leave application dated 22.8.2007 which shows that he was not keen on resignation. The reason for submitting the resignation letter in the first instance was his suffering due to Low Back ache (lumber spondulitis) associated with vascular head ache and acute distressed condition due to which he had made a wrong application for resignation for which he had expressed his repentance and regrets and the department ought to have allowed him to withdraw the resignation especially when the respondents had not acted upon the resignation letter for nearly two months and have conveyed the acceptance only after receiving his application for withdrawal of the resignation letter. The learned counsel for the
applicant has also pointed out the legal aspect of the case that the applicant is allowed to withdraw his resignation letter within a reasonable time of its submission, if the respondents had not acted upon the same before his withdrawing it.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the letter of withdrawal of resignation letter was received on 22.10.2007 at the office of the Respondent No2 which is a sub-ordinate office situated at a place different from the Head office. But till 23.10.2007, the same had not reached the Head office, viz., the Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - I who is the competent authority for accepting resignation. By then the Head office had already decided to accept his resignation.

6. It is seen that the applicant was working in the Sub-Regional Office of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation at Bommanahalli which is the office of Respondent No.2, which is also the applicant’s controlling office for all purposes. Under the service conditions, the applicant is not allowed to contact the Head office directly. All his applications to the department have to be made only at the sub-ordinate office. Even where the competent authority to act upon various applications is of a higher rank and occupies office situated at a place different from the place of duty, the applicant has responsibility to make such applications only at his place of work. Therefore, as far as the applicant is concerned, any communication made by him and received by Respondent No.2 is a complete communication. How quickly or late the communication travels from the subordinate office to the head office of the respondents is a matter internal to the department and the applicant cannot be made to suffer for any gap in the communication, however small it may be. It is not the responsibility of applicant to reach his applications to competent authorities. It is for his office to forward the same to competent authority.

7 In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the OA should succeed. The OA is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 24.10.2007 is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to take back the applicant to duty forthwith. The applicant is entitled to all consequential benefits flowing therefrom.



No comments:

Post a Comment