Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, May 25: Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that the resignation under force and threat cannot be said to be voluntary resignation.
The ruling was given by the High Court while quashing an order passed by authorities accepting resignation of two troopers who had tendered it following a threat perception received by their parents in 2006.
Disposing of a petition by the two troopers-Mudasir Bashir and Safi ullah-through their counsel Asif Maqbool, court directed the Seema Suraksha Bal (SSB) to consider both of them in continuous service and pay them consequential benefits.
While undergoing training at SSB’s Centre at Barauni Bihar, the duo had tendered resignations due to the threatening letters received by their parents from the militants. Later, they approached the concerned authorities of SSB with the plea that the resignations, tendered by them were not voluntary but in compulsions and force but failed to receive justice and finally they approached the High Court in 2009 and the court ordered SSB in 2013 to reexamine their case in light of the claims made by them.
The Court had also observed that the SSB was not expected to summarily accept their resignations but to consider the circumstances in which they were forced to put in their papers.
In pursuance to the Court order, Director General of SSB while re-examining the case of duo, passed an order in October 2013, holding their claim as untenable.
Subsequently, the duo again approached the High Court and besides the October 2013 order, they also challenged order dated 20 March 2006, where under their resignations were accepted.
“Perusal of the communication would show that fathers’ of the petitioners were informed that their children, who stand appointed in the (force), be called back within a week’s time. They were threatened that in case the instruction was not complied with, then, besides burning their residential houses, the fathers of these petitioners will be sent to hell,” the court observed.
While the Commandant of the training centre of SSB, Barauni had admitted that the resignation was tendered by them because of the threat from the militants, the SSB had stated that the resignations were voluntary and were, accordingly, accepted.
“The case set up by the petitioners, supported by the material on record, it is clear that resignations tendered by them were not voluntary,” the court said, adding that in common sense as also in Service Jurisprudence, the act of tendering resignation presupposes that the same is voluntary and is tendered by its author out of his/her free will and choice.
“The moment it is shown, by credible material, that an employee was forced to tender resignation, same loses its legal effect and also ceases to be a voluntary resignation”, court said, adding with “in the admitted fact position of this case, the resignations tendered by the petitioners were not voluntary and in law same cannot be said to be resignations”.
With these observations High Court quashed the 20 March 2006 order by the commandant of the training centre as well as 15 October 2013 order by the Director General of SSB.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel