Smt. Tarika Tarangini Lakra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2604 of 2019 Smt. Tarika Tarangini Lakra W/o Shri Nirmal Lakra Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Tamnar, Thana And Tehsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanandi Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Chief Medical And Health Officer Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

3. Station House Officer Tamnar, Tehsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---Respondents For petitioner :

Shri M.L. Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Shri Jitendra Pali, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 04/04/2019

1. The Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P/5 dated 27.03.2019. Vide the said order the respondent authority has on the resignation letter tendered by the petitioner on 02.07.2019 have asked the petitioner to comply certain formalities and provide certain details so that the resignation letter can be further processed and necessary orders can be passed.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner on account of certain harassment that she has received at the departmental level was unable to pursue her services, therefore, she was compelled to tender resignation on 27.03.2019 out of frustration.

3. The Counsel for the petitioner further submits that he has instruction to state that the petitioner is not willing to continue her employment any further and only wants to lead a peaceful life ahead and therefore, the respondent may not make correspondence to the petitioner for completing frivolous formalities, once the petitioner is not interested in working with the respondent.

4. Given the said facts of the case, since the petitioner has already tendered resignation and from the submissions that is gathered and have been made by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, since July, has not reported for duty, thereby it clearly reflects that the petitioner is no longer interested in employment.

5. Given the said facts that this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner interfering with the impugned order 27.03.2019. If petitioner is not interested and also not willing to fulfill the conditions or the requirements made in the impugned notice / letter dated 27.03.2019, the respondent would be free to take an appropriate step deeming the petitioner of having voluntarily left employment and the respondents would also be free to take appropriate decision so far as the settlement of the dues if any payable to the petitioner, in accordance with the rules and regulations is governing the field.

6. The writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE Jyoti