1 2025:CGHC:50859 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order reserved on : 23.07.2025 Order delivered on : 13.10.2025 WPC No. 3803 of 2024 Sushil Kumar Shukla S/o Late Shri Anand Shukla, Aged About 53 Years R/o House No. 333, Vidhansabha Road, Panchwati Nagar, Mova, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Registrar, Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Old R.D.A. Bhawan, First Floor, Shastri Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate. For Respondents-State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, PL. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma C A V Order 2 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition with following reliefs: “10. RELIEF (S) SOUGHT: 10.1. That, this Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 05.06.2024 (Annexure-P/1) and 18.06.2024 (Annexure-P/2) to extend the resignation from the date of 09.01.2024. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to any appropriate writ and/or any order in the nature of writ of mandamus to direction for the respondent no. 2 & 3 to pay the Salary/Honorarium/T.A./D.A. and all other dues, which is unpaid from November, 2023 to June, 2024. 10.3. Cost of the proceedings. 10.4. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 18.08.2021 petitioner was appointed as Member of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal. On 29.11.2021, respondent No.2 has sent a letter with regard to appointment of the petitioner on the said post, however, on 20.12.2023, petitioner has been removed from the said post. On 21/12/2023, respondent no.3 has issued an order, by which, service of the petitioner has been removed without completing three years of his service, however, as per the provision of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 and 3 Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal (Appointment, Qualification And Term of Members) Rules, 2016. the tenure of petitioner on the said post is prescribed for the period of 03 years, ie, from 31/08/2021 to 30/08/2024. Against the said removal order, petitioner has filed the writ petition (WPC No.12/2024 and on 08.01.2024 this Court has stayed the effect and operation of order dated 20-12-2023 and permitted the petitioner to continue discharging his duty/function as Member of CG Rent Control Tribunal, but instead of joining the said post and discharging his duties on 09.01.2024 petitioner has submitted his resignation before the concerned Registrar which has been accepted on 05.06.2024, however, the Department has wrongly accepted his resignation from the date of 09.01.2024 instead of 05.06.2024. By profession petitioner is a Advocate and due to late acceptance of his resignation, he could not do the work as Advocate from 09.01.2024 to 05.06.2024, therefore, he suffered loss. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned orders dated 05.06.2024 (Annexure-P/1) and 18.06.2024 (Annexure-P/2) be quashed to the extent of resignation of the petitioner from the date of 09.01.2024 and direction be issued to the concerned respondent-authority to pay the Salary/Honorarium/T.A./D.A and all other dues to the petitioner which is unpaid from November, 2023 to June, 2024. In support of his contention, learned Counsel places reliance upon order/decision of the hon’ble 4 Supreme Court in cases of Shriram Manohar Bande versus Uktranti Mandal & Ors report in 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 329; North Zone Cultrual Centre & Anr. Versus Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar reported in AIR 2003 SC 2719 and also the decision/order dated 24.06.2015 passed by this Court in WPS No.1139/2015 (Jitendra Kumar Banjare versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors). 3. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the General Administration Department vide memorandum no.2270/1883/2023/1/6 dated 15.12.2023 has issued the instruction/direction for termination of all the political appointment made in the State of Chhattisgarh. In compliance of said direction/instruction, vide order dated 20.12.2023, service of petitioner has been terminated from the post of Member of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal with immediate effect, however, vide order dated 08.01.2024 passed in WPC. No.12/2024 this Court has directed to retain the petitioner on the post of Member of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal. Pursuant to order dated 08.01.2024, petitioner has appeared before the concerned Authority on 09.01.2024 and instead of joining the said post, he has submitted his resignation. Since, code of conduct was in effect in the State of Chhattisgarh from 16.03.2024 to 04.05.2024, no adverse order was passed against the petitioner, but later on vide Annexure P-1 dated 5 05.06.2025, resignation of petitioner dated 09.01.2024 was accepted and same has been intimated to the petitioner vide Annexure P/2 dated 18.06.2024. Learned State Counsel further contended that petitioner himself resigned from the post of Member of CG Rent Control Tribunal on 09.01.2024 and in the present petition, he has requested for extension of office service from 09.01.2024 till the impugned order dated 05.06.2024, which itself shows the mala fide intention of the petitioner. In the order dated 20.02.2024 passed in WPC No.12/2024, this Court has observed that the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before the authorities and in-turn, the authorities are directed to consider his representation and pass appropriate order(s) preferably within a period of ‘30 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of order, however, petitioner rather than giving representation for joining on the alleged post before the concerned authority, he has given his resignation on 09.01.2024. Thus, present petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition including the impugned order. 5. First question arises before this Court whether the concerned Authority/Department accepted resignation of the petitioner from the date of 09.01.2024 instead of 05.06.2024 is legal or illegal? 6 6. Vide order dated 20.02.2024, this Court has disposed of WPC No.12/2024, relevant portion of said order reads as under: “4. Taking into consideration the limited grievance of the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to accept the resignation submitted by the petitioner. With regard to payment of honorarium, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before the authorities and in turn, the authorities are directed to consider his representation and pass appropriate order(s) preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 7. It is undisputed fact that on 18.08.2021 petitioner was appointed as Member of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal and as per the provision of Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 and Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal (Appointment, Qualification And Term of Members) Rules, 2016, the tenure of petitioner on the said post is prescribed for the period of 03 years, ie, from 31/08/2021 to 30/08/2024, however, period has been elapsed before filing of the writ petition. 8. It is also undisputed that vide order dated 08.01.2024 passed in WPC No.12/2024, this Court has stayed the effect and operation of order dated 20-12-2023 and permitted the petitioner to continue discharging his duty/function as Member of CG Rent Control Tribunal, however, instead of joining the said post, 7 petitioner has submitted his resignation on 09.01.2024 before the concerned Registrar and never worked on the said post from 09.01.2024 till acceptance of his resignation, ie, on 05.06.2024. 9. In case of Jitendra Kumar Banjare (supra), this Court has held that no order was passed by competent authority immediately on date of rendering of resignation and there is no provision is provided regarding resignation of the Municipal employee and its acceptance in the Rules, therefore, when the employee/public servant has invited his letter of resignation determination of his employment his service clearly stands terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority. 10. In the matter of Shriram Manohar Bande versus Uktranti Mandal & Ors (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the resignation would be effective on its acceptance. Further, in the matter of North Zone Cultrual Centre (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that resignation become effective from the date of its acceptance. 11. In view of above facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court it is clear that law is well settled that resignation become effective from the date of its acceptance. In case at hand, on 09.01.2024 petitioner has submitted his resignation before the concerned Registrar which has been accepted on 05.06.2024, 8 however, the Department has accepted his resignation from the date of 09.01.2024 instead of 05.06.2024, hence, it is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 12. So far as question with regard to payment of Salary/Honorarium/T.A./D.A and all other dues to the petitioner which is unpaid from November, 2023 to June, 2024 is concerned ? In this regard, vide order dated 08.01.2024 passed in WPC No.12/2024, this Court has permitted the petitioner to continue discharging his duty/function as Member of CG Rent Control Tribunal, however, instead of joining said post and discharging his duties, petitioner has submitted his resignation on 09.01.2024 before the concerned Registrar and he never worked on the said post from 09.01.2024 till acceptance of his resignation, ie, on 05.06.2024, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get any monitory benefit during the said period. Accordingly, relief sought (10.2) is hereby rejected. 13. So far as submission of counsel for the petitioner that by profession petitioner is a Advocate and due to late acceptance of his resignation, he could not do the work as Advocate from 09.01.2024 to 05.06.2024, therefore, he suffered huge loss, however, perusal of record/writ petition shows that petitioner has not raised any claim with regard to grant of compensation, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any compensation in 9 this regard. 14. For the foregoing observation/discussion, writ petition is allowed in part. Impugned orders dated 05.06.2024 (Annexure-P/1) and 18.06.2024 (Annexure-P/2) is hereby quashed to the extent of resignation of the petitioner from the date of 09.01.2024 and it is held that the effective date of resignation of petitioner from the said post is date of its acceptance, ie, 05.06.2024. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.