Disposed

Dr.B.Shankar Rao, Died Per LRs v. Nims.,Rep.by Executive Registrar, Hyderabad and Another

Telangana HC10 Dec 2025WP/20453/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An Assistant Professor whose resignation was never formally accepted sought reinstatement and full service benefits till superannuation; he died during the petition. The court held both sides acted improperly, noting the employee's suppression of foreign employment, and directed payment of Rs.5,00,000 as lump-sum terminal benefit to his family.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay Rs.5,00,000 to the deceased employee's family within six months; no costs.

Dr.B.Shankar Rao, Died Per LRs Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF^DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

iHE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE^{NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶7

PETITION 20453 0F

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dr.B.Shankar Rao, Died^{Per LRs, Anesthesiology andCriticalCare, Nizam} lnstitute of Medical Sciences,Hyderabad,^Ri/o.401 ,6-3-609110lN2^{Sri Sai} Residency, Anand Nagar Colony,^{Khairatabad Hyderabad-500082.}

¶10

Burla Venkata Priyamvada,^{W/o Late Dr. B. Shankar Rao, Aged.99} Ve9r9, Occ Housewife,^-Rl/o Flat No. 401,^{Sri Sai Residency'H.No. 6-3-} 6O9l1OtN2,Anand Nagar Colony,^{Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500 004.}

¶11

Burla Sowjanya, D/o^{Late Dr. B. Shankar Rao,Age{ 2-l y-99tr,} -Occ^Student, R/o Flat No.-401, Sri Sai Residency,^{H.No. 6-3-609l10lN2,AnandNagar} Colony, Khairatabad, Hyderabad^- 500^004.

¶12

Burla Satya Sri, D/o Late^{Dr. B. ShankarRao, Ageq-2-1} Y-!!p,^{pcc Student,} Rl/o Flat No. 401 , Sri Sai Residency,^{H.No.6-3-609l10lN2,AnandNagar} Colony, Khairatabad, Hyderabad^{- 500 004.}

¶13

(Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are brought on record as LRs of deceased^Sole Fetitioner as^per Court Order dated^{2411112023 in l.A.No.01/2022)}

¶14

.....PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

Nizam's lnstitute of Medical Sciences,^{repby its Executive Registrar,} Punjagutta, Hyderabad.

¶17

DirectorA/ice Chancellor, Nizam lnstltute^{of Medical, Sciences, Panjagutta'} Hyderabad.

¶18

.....RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition Under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith' the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a writ order or direction more^{particularly on the in the nature of} writ of mandamus declaring the^{action of the respondents in not allowingme} petitioner to^join duty of the post of Asst.Professor,^{Anesthesiology,in lntensive}

¶20

care as arbil::ary,^{illegal, unjust and unreasonableand violativeof articles,14} and 21 of lhe^{Constitutionof lndia and issued a consequentialdirection} to the respondent^{to permit petitioner to joint duty forthwith treating him} as in duty from May^{2OOG and payall attendant benefits and pass (b)} to direct the respondents to treat that^{the deceased employee was on dutyfrom} his^joining till he had attained the age^{of superannuationi.e., 30-04-2019} and^grant him all consequential benefits^such. as^arrears of^pay, increments,^promotions and consequential pensidn and other statutory benefits such as Gratuity, GpF etc., with accrued interest.

¶21

¶22

Petition Under Section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents forthwith permitting the petitioner to join the post of Asst.Professor, Anesthesiology, Department of Anesthesiology in lntensive care and pay back wages and consequential benefits.

¶23

|.A.NO:1 OF 2018

¶24

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release his provident Fund and Gratuity amount lying with the respondents forthwith without prejudice his claim in writ petitioner.

¶25

I.A.NO:'l OF 2024

¶26

Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to permit the petitioners to add the following relief as (b) in addition to existing relief : (b) To direct the respondents to treat that the deceased employee was on duty from his^joining till he had attained the age of superannuation i.e., 30-04-2019 and grant him all consequential benefits such as arrears of pay, increments, promotions and consequential pension and other statutory benefits such as Gratuity, GPF etc., with accrued interest.

¶27

-^-.:'*i'. .j,,Eir

¶28

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI T.P.ACHARYA

¶30

counsel for the Respondents : SRI KoyA PRABHAKAR REDDY The Court made the following ORDER

¶31

,-Ji

¶32

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF'TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI)

¶33

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHUIAR RAO

¶34

oth of 2o25

¶35

Bgtween:

¶36

Dr- B- Shankar Rao (died) per LRs., petitioners No.2 to 4

¶37

Petitioners

¶38

AND

¶39

Nizam's Institute of Medical sciences, punjagutta, Hyderabad and another

¶40

.. Respondents

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

This writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to treat that the deceased employee as on duty from his joining until he attained the age of supera.nnuation, i.e. 3o.o4.2org, and to grant all other promotional and consequentiar benefits.

¶43

2- Heard Sri r.p.Acharya, learned coirnsel for the petitioners and sri Koya prabhakar Reddy, rearned standing counsel for Nizam Institute of Medicar Sciences, appearing for respondents.

¶44

The brief facts of the case are as follows:_

¶45

(a) since the original petitioner by name Dr. B. shankar Rao (hereinafter referred to as "deceased employee,,) died during the pendency of the writ petition, his legal

representatives^{were broughton recordas petitionersNo.2 to} 4.

¶50

(b) The deceased^{employeejoined as a Lecturer in the} first respondent^{Instituteon01. 1 1.1991 and worked till} 09.10.1993.^{His post was redesignatedas Assistant Professor,} and he had been^{working since 10.1O.1993.The first} respondent, vide^{Proceedings, dated29.04.1997, appointedthe} deceased as an^{Assistant Professor inthe Departmentof} Anesthesiolory, Intensive^{care, on atemporary basis. The} deceased employee^{acceptedthe saidappointmenton} I2.O5.L997, and^{his services were regularized with effect from} 12.05.1997 vide^{Proceedings,dated 13.03.2000,and he rrn'as} placed on probation for^{two years within a continuous period of} three years from the^{date of regularization. He was declared to} have satisfactorily^{completedthe probationaryperiod in the} category of Assistant^{Professor in theDepartment of} Anesthesiologr,^{vide proceedings dated 14.05.2001.}

¶51

(c) While things stood thus,^{onaccountofsome} domestic issues,^{the deceasedemployee was on EL from} lg.O8.2OO3 to^{06.09.2003 and reportedto duty on 08.O9.2OO3} in the forenoon.^{Subsequently,on28.1O.2OO3, dueto} unavoidable^{circumstances,he extendedhis leave till the end} of November^{2003, and the said letterwas duly received by the}

¶52

¶53

first respondent's office. However, the first respondent rejected his request for extension of leave for the said period and instructed him to^join duty immediately. A show cause notice was issued vide proceedings, dated 14.05.2OO4, asking him to show cause as to why disciplinar5r action should not be taken against him for his alleged unauthorized absence from 20.10.2003 within 15 days of the receipt of the sarne, in default, further disciplinar5r action would be initiated against him as per NIMS Employees Conduct Standing Order 1995.

¶54

(d) Due to personal problems, the deceased employee tendered his resignation to his post as Assistant Professor, Anesthesiologr, Intensive care, by addressing a letter to the 2"d respondent on 16.06.2004 and requested that his terminal benefits be settled. The l"t respondent on 16.07.2004 issued a letter, RC.No.1239/97/ACAD/A4, instructing him to pay three months salary in lieu of the notice period, for the purposes of taking further action to accept his resignation. Similar letters were issued on 07.08.2005,01.03.2006 and 29.04.2006, respectively. The cumulative effect of the said letters was that inasmuch as he failed to pay three month's salary in lieu of the notice period, the respondents have not taken any further action in accepting his resignation. Thus, he was in service as

¶55

¶56

his resignation had not^{been accepted. on 22.05.2006,the} deceased employee addressed a^{letter to the 2"d respondent} withdrawing his resignation, inter alia^{stating that the 2nd} respondent did not accept^{the resignationsubmitted by him} while he was on EOL without^{pay. As such, he would like to} continue in the Department^{of Anesthesioloryin his original} post. The respondents rejected his^{requestto be permittedhim} to re-join in his post. The^{said action on the part of the} respondents is arbitrary and illegal,^{inasmuchas there is no} justification for refusing to' accept request to^{re-join the} Institute even before his^{resignation was accepted.}

¶57

(e) Having left with no option,^{he had depositedthe} three months salary in lieu^{of notice period by issuing a} cheque bearing No.732432,^{d,ated,23.06.2006 in the name of} 2"d respondent and^{requestedto settle his terminalbenefits} and deposit.them in^{his sB A/c. ABG 21206, maintainedby} him in AB, NIMS Branch.^{However,the respondents have} neither accepted. his resignation^{nor allowed him to resume} duty. He had submitted^{several representationstothe} respondents^praying them^{to allowhim to resume duty, but the} respondents,^{were not allowinghim to join duties nor passing} any orders on his^{representations.Hence, he filed the present}

Writ Petition.

)

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the original petitioner died during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the terminal benefits of the deceased may be granted to his legal representatives.

¶62

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents filed a counter by contending as follows:

¶63

(a) While the deceased employee was working as an Assistant Professor, he had submitted a leave application on 29.12.1994 without mentioning the period of leave. In the leave letter, it was stated that his daughter was admitted to the Hospital in Bombay for severe Gastroenteritis. The lnstitute granted four days earned leave from 28.12.L994 to 31 .12.1994. On 16.12.1995, he had sent a letter to them requesting an extension of leave till the first week of March 1995, but he had not furnished an address for correspondence in Bombay. Subsequently salary was stopped. The leave application was refused by the administration and the deceased employee was directed to join duty. He had^joined duty on 06.O3.1995 and stated that he and his wife were attacked with Acute Gastroenteritis and could not^join duties before 06.03.1995.

¶64

(b) The deceased employee had requested the NIMS on 15.04.1995 to issue a "No Objection Certificate" for getting employment in some other places in India. Accordingly, the

¶65

¶66

Institute had issued "No Objection Certificate." Later, he had applied for C.L. for two days on 21"t and 22nd April 1995. Accordingly, he was granted two days Casual Leave. Later, he sent a telegram to extend his leave without specifying the period. The Institute had rejected his request for extension of leave and directed him to join duties immediately. on receipt of the rejection order, he again made an application to the respondents to grant him six months E.O.L. (loss of pay). They immediately sent a letter asking him to join duty, as the leave on loss of pay was rejected uide letter dated 23.05.199s. The said letter also stated that, in the event of his failure to join duties, disciplinar5r action would be initiated against him by the respondents.

¶67

(c) The deceased employee had tendered resignation to the post of Assistant Professor held by him, on 12.06.1995. On receipt of resignation letter, the Institute had asked him to produce "No Due Certificate", pay excess salary paid and three months' salary in lieu of notice period of resignation. But, he did not turn up with the "No Due Certificate" and did not pay the said amount to the Institute. The wife of the deceased employee Smt. B.V. Priyamvada, Manager (Legal), NABARD, Bombay, sent a letter to the Director on 21.07.1995 on the letterhead of NIMS, in which she stated that she was

¶68

¶69

authorized to issue and submit the letter under the instructions of her husband. She noted that her husband had been working for the Ministry of Health, Saudi Arabia. It is also said that her husband formerly worked as an Assistant Professor at NIMS, and he applied for Casual Leaves on 21.04.1995 and 22.04.1995, and subsequently extended leave on loss of pay due to some domestic circumstances. Her husband also received the letters of the NIMS rejecting her husband's leave. The letter also states that they submitted their resignation with immediate effect on 12.06.1995. The Institute asked the deceased employee to pay three months' salary in lieu of notice for resignation and produce a "No Due Certificate" in order to relieve him. Fina1ly, the deceased employee had stated that he was withdrawing his resignation tendered on 12.06.1995 and requested the Institute to grant two years EOL on loss of pay to enable him to continue in foreign assignments in Saudi Arabia.

¶70

(d) Later, the deceased employee submitted a letter to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of A.P. on 01.09.1995 with a request to grant Extraordinary Leave for two years to continue in Saudi Arabia. As per rules, an employee has to request his employer only for the sanction of leave, etc., However, he had sent a

request letter for the sanction of EOL to the Hon'ble^Chief Minister, which is irregular and a violation of discipline by an employee. The Institute had issued a letter to him on 18.09.1995 stating that his resignation had already been accepted and that the issuance of a formal order is pending due to non-submission of the "No Due Certificate" by him.

¶75

(e) The Institute had issued a Notification to fill up the vacant posts of faculty, including the post of Assistant Professor in Anesthesiologr, which became vacant due to the resignation by the petitioner during the month of 1997. The deceased employee applied for the said vacant post, was selected, and appointed to it. He joined as an Assistant Professor on 12.05.1997. Subsequently, the Institute had asked him to pay the dues due by him to the NIMS for the former period of Assistant Professor, for which he requested the lnstitute to permit him to pay the said amount in instalments through his letter, dated 08.09.1997. The Institute allowed him to pay the dues in six monthly instalments.

¶76

(f) While working as Assistant Professor, i.e. 2nd time appointment, the deceased employee had applied on 26.02.1998 to the Director to issue him a bona fide Certificate to get Fellowship in the Royal. Cbllege of Anesthesiologr in the U.K. Accordingly, he was i""r.i dhe Certificate of bona fide. On

¶77

¶78

19.08.20O3, the deceased^{employee had requestedthe lnstitute} to issue him^{a "No Objection Certificate" to attend an interview} abroad. The Institute^{issued a "No Objection Certificate"on} 22.O8.2OO3. He apptied^{for 3O days of EL from 20.09.2003.} Before submitting said leave letter,^{he asked NIMSto grant him} EOL for two years, as he had been^{appointed as a Consultant} at Holberton Hospital, West tndies. The^{institute rejected his} request for EOL, as NIMS required his^{services,and he} absented himself from duty^{w.e.f. 21.O9.2OO3.}

¶79

(g) The deceased employee submitted a letter to^the Institute on 28.10.2003 to extend his^leave till^{the end of} November 2003. The authorities^{rejectedhis request vide NIMS} letter dated O7.I1.2O03 and were^{instructedto joinduty} immediately, faiting which, would^{initiatenecessary} disciplinar5r action against him. Since^{there was no response} from him, the Institute had issued a show cause^{notice on} 14.o5.2OO4, asking why the disciplinary action^{shouldnot be} taken against him for his^{prolongedunauthorizedabsencefrom} duty. In response to the Show^{Cause Notice,he resigned from} the post of Assistant Professor, Department^{of Anesthesiolory,} on 16.06.2004. On the sa.me d"y, the^{Instituteimmediately} sent him a letter requires him to^pay three^{months'salaqr in} lieu of notice for his resignation.^{The petitioner did not respond}

\ I I{

to the letter dated 16.06.2004. The Institute issued a reminder to him on 07.08 .2OOS to pay three months' salary and submit a No Due Certificate to relieve him of service. Once again, he was reminded on O1.03.2006 to pay the said amount. Finally, he p"id^{an amount of Rs.99,l9B/- on 23.06.2006 towards three} months' salary in lieu of notice for resignation, but he failed to produce "No Due Certificate."

¶84

(h) On L7.O3.2O08, the deceased employee requested the NIMS to permit him to^join duties as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Anesthesiologr, he also states that he had not claimed any wages for the earlier period.

¶85

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the NIMS had issued a paper Notification on 03.06.2006 calling applications for the vacant posts of faculty, including the post of Assistant Professor in Anesthesiologr, due to the resignation of the deceased employee. In response to the Notification, the deceased employee also applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Anesthesiologr and was called to attend an interview on 79.07.2006 by the Selection Committee. He got only 9 marks out of 20, and others got higher marks than him. ln view of the fact that the deceased employee^was unable to complete the selection process successfully. He was not

¶86

¶87

selected^{for the post of AssistantProfessorof Anesthesiologz.} The deceased^{employee, having faced} the interview and unsuccessful^{in the selection process on 19.07.2006, strangely} suppressed^{the said fact before this Court and prayed} to be continued^{in service. The sarne cannotbe granted} in^view of the admitted^{fact borne on record that the deceased employee} was not in^{serviceof the respondentherein since 2OO4} and^prayer of the^{deceasedemployee to join back in NIMS} on duty as an Assistant^{Professor,Anesthesiologr} Department of Anesthesiologr^{in Intensive Care and payment} of back weges and consequential^{benefits as claimed} by him cannot be granted at^{all by this Hon'bleCourt.}

¶88

T. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that in the application^{made to the post of Assistant} Professor, the deceased^{employeehad given the particularsof} his employment during^{the period of absence of the petitioner} at NIMS stating that he^{had workedat Saudi Arabia and West Indies} etc., The same reflect^{his conductand also an} attempt on his part to suppress^{the facts before this Hon'ble} Court by projecting a misleading^{version before the Hon'ble} Court. NIMS already accepted^{his resignation,and} he had also paid Rs.99, L98 /- in feu^{of the three months'} notice period. Since he had failed to produce^a "No Due Certificate" from the concerned.

¶89

, _ -. dt- ,.:;. ,^..-r .1. ".J.^:.,

¶90

¶91

¶92

departments of NIMS, no formal^{relieving orders were issued.} The deceased employee had^suppressed all^{the facts before this} Court regarding his unauthorized and^prolonged absence from duty and his going to abroad for gainful employment. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶93

"FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

¶94

The undisputed facts are that the deceased employee joined as a Lecturer in the first respondent Institute on 01.11.1991 and worked till 09.10.1993. His post was redesignated as Assistant Professor and he had been working from 10.10.1993 onwards. The first respondent, vide Proceedings, dated 29.04.1997, appointed the deceased as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Anesthesiologr, lntensive Care, on a temporary basis, and his services were regtlarized with effect from 12.05.1997. The deceased employee was on EL from 19.08.2003 to 06.09.2003 and reported to duty on 08.09.2OO3. Subsequently, on 28.1O.2OO3, he extended his leave till the end of November 2OO3, and the said letter was duly received by the first respondent's office. However, the first respondent rejected his request for extension of leave^{for the said periodand instructed} him to^join duty immediately.^{A show} cause notice was issued vide proceedings

¶95

¶96

dated^{14.O5.2OO4, asking him to show cause as to why} disciplinar5r^{action should not be taken against him for his} alleged^{unauthorizedabsence from 20.LO.2OO3,within 15 days} of receipt^{of the same; in default, furtherdisciplinaryaction} would^{be initiatedagainst him.}

¶97

g. Due to personal problems, the deceased employee tendered^{his resignation to his post as an Assistant Professor,} Anesthesiologr,^{Intensiveca.re, by addressinga letter to the 2"a} respondent^{on 16.06.2OO4 and requested to settle his terminal} benefits^{due to him. The 1"t respondent on 16.07.2004 issued} a letter,^{RC.No. 1239} 197 /^ACAD /^{A4, instructinghim} to^pay three^{months salary in lieu of the notice period, for the purpose} of taking^{further action to accept his resignation.Similar} letters^{were issued on07.O8.2OO5,01.03.2006} and 29.04.2006,^{respectively. The cumulative effect} of the said letters^{was that inasmuch as he failed to pay} three months salary in^{lieu of the notice period,the respondents} have not taken any^{further action for accepting his} resignation. Thus, he was in^{service as his resignation had} not been accepted.

¶98

On^22.05.2006, the^deceased emplo5ree addressed a letter^{to the 2.d respondent} withdrawing his resignatiot:., inter alia stating^{that the resignation} submitted by him while he was

¶99

¶100

¶101

on EOL without pay was not accepted. As such,^{he would like} to continue in the Department of Anesthesiolory in his original post. The respondents rejected his request to be permitted to re-join his post. Having left with no option, he had deposited the three months salary in lieu of the notice period by issuing a Cheque bearing No.732432, dated 23.06.2006, in the name of the 2nd respondent and had requested that his terminal benefits be settled.

¶102

1 1. The respondent authorities did not take any action against the resignation letter till 22.05.2006, and they simply sent the letter to pay three months salary towards the notice period. Not taking any action on the resignation, the petitioner made an application on 22.05.2006, withdrawing his resignation and informed the authorities by way of a letter, intending to^join duty. For upon acceptance of the resignation and upon intending to join duty, the petitioner paid the amount of Rs.99,198f -, which was realized by the NIMS on 27.06.2006. Even after receiving the notice period amount, the respondent authorities neither accepted the resignation nor accepted his rejoining in duty.

¶103

During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the petitioner died on 13.09.2OL9.

¶104

¶105

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the employee is at liberty to withdraw his resignation before the expiry of the effective date. Even in case where no effective date is stipulated, the resignation can be withdrawn before the acceptance of the resignation is communicated. To fortify his argument, he relied upon the order of the erstwhile A.P. High court in the case of sudha Nagaraj K. vs. chtef Manager, And.hrq. Bo;nk and another;r wherein it was held as under:

¶106

" 12. Applging the principles laid doun by the supreme court it has to be held that it is alwags open for the emplogee to utithdraw his resignation, before the expiry of the effectiue date. Euen in case where no effectiue d.ate is stipulated., the resignation can be uithd.ranan before the acceptance of the re sig nation is ammunicated. "

¶107

[n the instant case also, the deceased employee due to personal problems, tendered his resignation to his post as an Assistant Professor, Anesthesiologr, Intensive care, by addressing letter to the 2nd respondent on 16.06.2004 and requested to settle his terminal benefits due to him, but the respondent authorities did not take any action against the said resignation letter till 22.os.2006 and they sent the letter to pay three months salary towards notice period. No-taking any

¶108

'^{. oeeplALT 2e3}

¶109

. \

¶110

¶111

action on the resignation, the^{petitioner was constrainedto} make an application on 22.05.2006^{withdrawing his} resignation and informed the authorities that he^{would rejoin} duty and paid the amount of Rs.99,1981- which was^realized by the NIMS on 27.06.2006. Though the issues are one and the same, but the petitioner did not comply with the entire process within the period i.e. payment of three months' salary in lieu of the notice period and also not submitted the 'No^due certificate' from all the departments.

¶112

With regard to counting of the service period, whether it ends from the date of resignation or from the date of acceptance of the resignation, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the^judgment of the Kerala High Court, in the case of Hgderali. Vs. Stolte of Keralaf *n^{rein the} Court relied upon the^judgment of the^{Apex Court in Power}

¶113

Finance C2?toration Ltd. Vs. Prqmod Kutnar^Bhortia, wherein the Apex Court held as follows:

¶114

"It is nou well legal position that unless tle employee^is relieued. of tle duty, after acceptance of tle offer of uoluntary retirement or resignation,^jural relationship of the emplogee and to emploger does not come to an end. Since th.e order acepting the uoluntary retirement was a conditional one, the condition sought to haue been complied with... Before tlrc conditions could be complied

¶115

'^{. (zoo t) 02 KL cK0030, decided on 08.02.2001}

¶116

¶117

with, the appellant withdrew tle sclrcme. Consequentlg, the order accepting uoluntary retirement did not beame effectiue."

¶118

[n the instant case, though it is not a Voluntary Retirement scheme, the deceased employee sent a letter of resignation, but without accepting his resignation, the authorities kept silent for nearly two years, which is bad in law. For acceptance of the resignation if any condition stipulated in the appointment order, the authorities should have informed the deceased employee within no time.

¶119

Lea-r:ned counsel for respondents vehemently argued that the deceased employee had not come to the court with clean hands, and he suppressed the material facts, and he relied upon the judgment of the Honble supreme court in the case of

¶120

K.D. Shqrrnq. Vs. Steel Authoritg of India Limited and, otherse wherein the Honble Supreme Court held as follows:

¶121

"38. ... As per settled lana, the party uho inuokes tLrc ertraordinary juisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of tlrc Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all mateial facts utithout anA reseruation euen if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to plaA "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" th.e facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The uery basrs of tlrc Wit

¶122

'^{.zooa1tz1scc481}

¶123

¶124

jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and^complete (correct) facts. If material facts are^suppressedor distorted., the uery functioning of^{Writ Courts and exercise} would" beame impossible. The^{petitioner must disclose} atl the facts hauing a bearing on the^{relief soughtuithout} ang qualiftcation. Ihr.s is because "tlrc^{court knousthe} law but not facts."

¶125

The reason for to referring the^{above case law by the} respondents is that the deceased employee^{had not furnished} anything about his employment abroad during the^{period of his} unauthorized and prolonged absence. While the^deceased employee was working as an Assistant Professor,^{i.e. 2'd time} appointment, he applied on26.09.1998^to the^{Directorto issue} him a Bona fide certificate to get a Fellowship in^{the Royal} Cotlege of Anaesthesiolory in the UK. He^{was issuedthe} certificat e of Bona fide. On 19.08 .2OO3, the^{deceased employee} requested that a No Objection Certificate^{to attend an interview} at abroad. The Institute has issued the same on^22.O8.2OO3- The above mentioned facts were not disclosed in the^Writ Petition. Hence, thq respondent on this ground alone^{prayed to} dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶126

When the matter was taken up for hearing, after observing all the facts above, this Court felt that both sides did not act properly. Moreover, the original petitioner expired.

¶127

/ / ! t

¶128

¶129

Accordingly, this court asked both counsel on record as to whether an amicable settlement was possible between the parties and requested that they submit their calculation memos. Pursuant to the sarne, on 3o.o8.2o2s. The respondent authorities placed the calculation of terminal benefits about for the deceased employee regarding gratuity up to september 2oo3, GPF till September 2oo3, and GSLI, Altogether, t]:ey are ready to pay Rs.1,67,7441-. But the deceased employee tendered his resignation to his post as an Assistant^professor, Anesthesiologr, Intensive care, by addressing letter to the 2.a respondent on 16.06.2004 and requested to settle his terminal benefits due to him, but the respondent authorities did not take ar.y action against the said resignation letter till 22.05.2006. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased employee was in service till September 2oo3 as per the calculation submitted by the respondents. As such, the calculation submitted by the respondents appears to be incorrect.

¶130

The petitioners'counsel also submitted calculation Memo as per G.O.Ms.No.56 Finance (HRM.V) Department, dt.1 1 .06.2021, which is applicable from ol.o4.2o2o, with regard to gratuity with interest @9o/op.a. calculated

¶131

I I

¶132

¶133

atRs. L7 ,95,ooo /- and GPF amount with interest @L2o/o p.a. from 2006 to 2oo7 amounting to Rs. 13,23 ,go3 / - and also mentioned in the said calculation memo, the Rs.9g,Lgg/- paid t by the deceased employee for three months notice period has to ; b€ paid with 9o/o interest, full salar5r from lg.og.2oog till the age of supera.nnuation i.e. 3o.o4.2org, which comes to Rs.91,41,564/-, and pension to the deceased employee from

¶134

0 1-05.2019 till L2.og.2olg at Rs.2,50,0 oo / -, and family pension at Rs.26 ,2S,OOO / -. In all, Rs. 1rS1, g5,46Z I _.

¶135

Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the G.o.Ms.No.56, dt.11 .06.2021, calculated the amounts, but the said G.o., specifically mentioned in para No.4, that these orders shall come into effect w.e.f.ol.o4.2o2o only. whereas the original petitioner died in 2oL9. He left the respondents services in 2oo4. Hence, the calculation cannot be looked into in view of the above G.o. without taking into consideration of both the calculation memos, this court feels that in view of the negligent acts of both sides, the deceased employee,s family should not suffer. At the same time, the deceased,s family cannot claim huge amounts from the respondents as the deceased employee suppressed the material fact of gainfut employment during his unauthorized absence.

¶136

¶137

2L. Under the above^{circumstances,} to meet the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents, in^{all, to pay a sum of Rs.5,OO,OOO/- (Rupees Five} lakhs only) to the^{deceased family within a,period of six (06)} months from the^{date of receipt of a copy of this order.}

¶138