5.3.2002 was illegal.
The factual background which is almost undisputed is as under Late Hari Ram joined the services of the appellant Bank on 9.1.1985.
5.3.2002.
As the resignation was withdrawn much prior to the stipulated date of its acceptance, the Bank had numberlegal authority to relieve him w.e.f.
He, therefore, requested number to give effect to the letter.
It was clearly indicated that in the event of failure to submit the documents, he would be relieved from the Banks service w.e.f.
The request for resignation was accepted and late Hari Ram was relieved from the Banks service on 5.3.2002.
The ground indicated was that at the time of writing the letter he was seriously ill, was suffering from fever, and due to the effect of medicines he was mentally disturbed.
On 8.6.2002 late Hari Ram expired.
1.3.2002, which was received by the Bank on 8.1.2002.
On 7.10.2002 a writ petition was filed before the High Court taking the stand that late Hari Ram companytinued to be in service of the Bank and the order directing his relieve from the Banks service w.e.f.
1.3.2002.
On 7.1.2002 he submitted his resignation to the Branch Manager of the Kungar Branch requesting its acceptance w.e.f.
On 4.2.2002 late Hari Ram sought to withdraw the proposed resignation.
It was companycluded that the resignation was withdrawn before it came into effect, and the letter purported to have been received by appellant Bank on 4.3.2002 was clearly of numberconsequence.
On 12.8.2002 the admitted service benefits were accepted by the respondent.
On receipt of the letter, appellant Bank wrote back to him saying that since he had indicated to have written the letter due to ailment, proof of ailment and supporting documents were required to be filed.
The Division Bench by the impugned judgment accepted the prayer.
In the numbermal companyrse, he would have retired on 6.6.2005.
No document was submitted.
1.3.2002.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
On the companytrary, another letter was received from late Hari Ram on 4.3.2002 reiterating his prayer for accepting his resignation.
Challenge in this appeal is to the companyrectness of a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the appellant Bank was number justified in relieving Hari Ram, deceased husband of the respondent, from services of the Bank with effect from 5.3.2002.
