JUDGMENT Hon’ble Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. Delay condonation application No. 13039 of 2012 is allowed. Rejoinder affidavit is taken on record. 2. The writ petitioner has challenged the order of acceptance of resignation dated 14th November, 2005. Short fact of the case is as follows: The petitioner at the relevant point of time was a Class-III employee of Nagar Panchayat Dineshpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Under compelling circumstances, the petitioner had put in paper on 21st September, 2004. I have seen the contents of the letter of resignation and it appears that he had put in paper because of humiliation and torture. It is also the case of the petitioner that two days thereafter on 23rd September, 2004, he had addressed a letter to the Chairman of the aforesaid body stating to withdraw the letter of resignation. In the said letter, it is alleged he had to resign because of the situation mentioned in the letter. Now, after being persuaded by many a people, he has decided to withdraw the letter of resignation. 3. The petitioner thought that after withdrawal of the resignation nothing would be done as he continued to serve as per the direction and instruction of respondents until the letter of acceptance of resignation being the impugned letter came to be served upon him. In the counter affidavit, the factum of resignation is not denied and disputed. What has been disputed is withdrawal of the resignation. It is said in the counter affidavit that the Nagar Panchayat had to take long time to take decision to accept the same. No letter of resignation was ever submitted, and consequently there was a delay. It is also said in the counter affidavit that the Nagar Panchayat is competent to take decision on the question of acceptance of resignation. 4. In the affidavit of rejoinder, a receipted copy of the letter of withdrawal is annexed to counter the denial of receipt of the letter of resignation. 5. In the aforesaid background of fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned letter is totally illegal and is whimsical action. The petitioner had been allowed to work and he did work under lawful order and direction of the superior authority and he had also drawn salary. Under the circumstances, the respondents are stopped from taking action pursuant to the said letter of resignation. The petitioner had been allowed to work and he did work under lawful order and direction of the superior authority and he had also drawn salary. Under the circumstances, the respondents are stopped from taking action pursuant to the said letter of resignation. He says that the resignation must be voluntary one, and from act and conduct of the petitioner, it appears that it is not a voluntary one and the act and conduct of both been ignored. Hence, the said belated acceptance of the letter of resignation is of no consequence in my view. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the letter of withdrawal is a concocted story as at no point of time this letter was written. The said letter of withdrawal annexed to the writ petition as well as to the rejoinder affidavit is a manufactured document and the same has been prepared to make the foundation of this writ petition. 6. He submits that the delay of acceptance of resignation occurred because the Board is competent authority to take decision and the Board sits regularly and when it sits in its usual course, the letter of resignation was placed and accepted on 11th November, 2005, and thereafter, this letter of acceptance was communicated. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having noted the fact, I find the following is admitted position : (i) The petitioner had put in paper on 21st September, 2004. (ii) Even after putting in paper, the petitioner discharged duties and the respondents allowed him to work and paid salary. Meaning thereby, there is a master and servant relationship. (iii) Acceptance of letter of resignation was communicated after more than one year. 8. I do not find explanation as to why even after receiving the letter of resignation, the petitioner was allowed to work for more than one year, and the petitioner did work. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the letter of withdrawal is a concocted one is not accepted by this Court as in the affidavit of rejoinder the receipted copy has been annexed. The Body could have challenged the same as to its genuineness by obtaining leave to file supplementary counter affidavit. In any view of the matter, act and conduct of both the parties clearly supports the case of withdrawal. 9. The Body could have challenged the same as to its genuineness by obtaining leave to file supplementary counter affidavit. In any view of the matter, act and conduct of both the parties clearly supports the case of withdrawal. 9. I am of the view that the letter of resignation is not accepted within a reasonable time as in this case there is no rule providing to give effect to the letter of resignation. I think one year and one month cannot be reasonable time in a matter of this nature. The reasonable time should have been in the matter of this nature for a period of three months, I think this length of time is adequate to form opinion to accept the resignation or not. Just because the petitioner has served even after the submission of letter of resignation, this fact per se is not sufficient to hold that the withdrawal of resignation is deemed to have been accepted, as some reasonable time has to be given to accept the same. Until and unless acceptance is made, the employee has to continue to serve. The moment the resignation is accepted, the master and servant relationship comes to an end. 10. As I have already held there is an inordinate delay and the fact that the department has asked to work for one year and more the case of withdrawal is clearly established not only by the act and conduct but also by the document annexed to the affidavit of rejoinder though questioned. However, I overrule the contention made by the Body as to the genuineness of the withdrawal of the resignation. Therefore, I quash this order. 11. The writ petition is allowed. 12. It appears that the petitioner was protected by the interim order. Hence, interim order is confirmed. 13. No order as to costs.