ORDER : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar at Anganwadi Worker Training Centre, working women hostel, jail Road Mandi and accordingly joined as such on 18.5.2017. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his resignation to be effected from 3.8.2017. Accordingly, the respondent accepted the same vide office order dated 9.8.2017 and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for the grant of following substantive relief(s): “a) Quash the impugned order dated 9.8.2017 (Annexure A1) being arbitrary, malafide and illegal; (b) Direct the respondents to consider the applicant in service for all purposes and intents with all consequential benefits from the date of acceptance of illegal resignation vide (Annexure A1). (c) Direct the respondents to consider the posting of the applicant to any of three vacant places in the given facts and circumstances of the case; 2. According to the petitioner, resignation could not have been accepted, more particularly, when the same had already been withdrawn at an earlier point of time. It is next contended that respondents were required to pass a speaking order before acting upon the representation of the petitioner regarding his resignation. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents and material placed on record. 4. In order to appreciate the controversy, one needs to understand the meaning of resignation. In legal parlance, resignation means a spontaneous relinquishment of one’s own rights. In relation to an office, resignation connotes the act of giving up or relinquishing the office. Generally, resignation to get its full effect should be unconditional. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Srikantha S.M. versus Bharath Earth Movers Ltd.”, (2005) 8 SCC, Supreme Court Cases, 314 has defined resignation in legal parlance and the same is found in para12 of the judgment (supra), which reads as under. “Now let us consider the controversy on merits. The term “resignation” has not been defined in the Service Rules. According to the dictionary meaning, however, “resignation” means spontaneous relinquishment of one’s own right. It is conveyed by the Latin maxim Resignatio est juris propii spontanea refutatio. (Resignation is a spontaneous relinquishment of one’s own right). In relation to an office, resignation connotes the act of giving up or relinquishing the office. According to the dictionary meaning, however, “resignation” means spontaneous relinquishment of one’s own right. It is conveyed by the Latin maxim Resignatio est juris propii spontanea refutatio. (Resignation is a spontaneous relinquishment of one’s own right). In relation to an office, resignation connotes the act of giving up or relinquishing the office. “To relinquish an office” means “to cease to hold office” or “to lose hold of the office” implies to detach”, “unfasten”, “undo” or “untie” “the binding knot or link” which holds one to the office and the obligation and privileges that go with it.” 6. Adverting to the facts, it would be noticed that letter dated 27.7.2017, whereby the petitioner submitted his resignation was conditional only to the effect that this would come into effect only from 3.8.2017, as is evident from the letter which is reproduced as under: mfpr ek/;e }kjk lsok esa] egklfpo] fg-ij-] jkT; cky dY;k.k ifj"kn] f'keyk&2 fo"k;% bLrhQk Lohdkj djus ckjs&A egksn;k] lknj fuosnu ;g gS fd eSa jke yksd iq= Lo- 'k~jh pUnj lSu vkaxuokM+h ijf'k{k.k dsan~j eaMh esa pkSdhnkj ds in ij dk;Zjr gwWaA ;g gS dh esjs ?kj dh ifjfLFkfr;ka Bhd u gksus ls mijksDr in ls bLrhQ+k nsuk pkgrk gwWa D;ksafd ;gkWa ls esjk ?kj cgqr nwj iM+rk gSA vk;s fnu ?kj esa dqN u dqN leL;k ?kfVr gksrh jgrh gSA esjh iRuh dk LokLFk; Hkh Bhd ugha py jgk gS] og chekj iM+ tkrh gS vkSj eq>s cgqr ijs'kkuh gks tkrh gSA blfy, eq>s cM+s [ksn ds lkFk o foo'k gksdj mijksDr in ls bLrhQ+k nsuk iM+ jgk gSA vr% vki esjk bLrhQ+k Lohdkj dj viuk ij~ca/k djsaA D;ksafd eSa fnukad 3-8-2017 dks NksM+dj pyk tkÅaxk rFkk vxj laHko gks lds rks esjh i~jfrfu;qfDr f'keyk ds vklikl gh djsaA l/kU;oknA Hkonh;] jke yksd iqr~j 'k~jh pUnj lSu fnukad 27-7-2017 pkSdhnkj vk- i~jf'kA dsanj eaMhA 7. It is not in dispute that resignation in question was not accepted prior to 3.8.2017 and came to be accepted only on 9.8.2017 that too w.e.f. 3.8.2017 (afternoon). 8. No doubt the petitioner did forward the registered letter to the respondents on 7.8.2017 showing his intention to withdraw his resignation, but the same, even as per the petitioner, was received in the office of the respondents only on 10.8.2017, by which time resignation as tendered by the respondents had already been accepted and had become effective on and w.e.f. 3.8.2017. The resignation could at best have been withdrawn prior to the acceptance but once the same was not withdrawn, it obviously had to be given effect to by the employer. 8. Even if, taking the case of the petitioner at its best and even if he was to withdraw the resignation, then he should have personally approached the respondents, prior to the respondents having acted upon his request of resignation. But once the resignation has been accepted prior to the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of the resignation, then in such circumstances, he has no one else to blame, save and except himself. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons, as stated above, we find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.