JUDGMENT : M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited has challenged the order dated 17th February 2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.3472 of 2012. 2. By the order dated 17th February 2017, the learned writ Court directed M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited to consider the writ petitioner's letter withdrawing his resignation. 3. The writ petitioner who was a permanent employee of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited decided to contest Assembly Elections of 2005 and, therefore, tendered his resignation on 2nd February 2005 which was accepted by the Project Officer, Gopichak Colliery on 19th February 2005. The writ petitioner's foray in politics by contesting the Assembly Election ended after his loss in the said Election. He approached the General Manager, Putki Balihari Area with an application dated 2nd March 2005 for cancellation/withdrawal of his resignation letter dated 2nd February 2005. 4. Before the learned writ Court, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited took a stand that after resignation by the writ petitioner which was accepted by the employer on 19th February 2005 there was no employer-employee relationship and that resignation once tendered and accepted cannot be withdrawn. 5. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant, in support of the challenge to the order dated 17th February 2017 refers to a decision in “New Victoria Mills & Ors. v. Shrikant Arya” 2021 SCC OnLine SC 808, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : “47. As noticed in para 3 aforesaid in J.N. Srivastava, the resignation was to operate prospectively from a specified date and was withdrawn before that date, despite being accepted which is a different factual scenario. We are also not in disagreement with the legal principle propounded by the respondent that a scheme like the MVRS was an “invitation to offer.” The application submitted by the respondent under the Scheme on 12.07.2002 was in the nature of an offer but we cannot accept the plea that vide letter dated 03.03.2003 there could be suspension of his resignation conditional on the deposit of provident fund dues which actually already were deposited (albeit a confusion over the credit to which it was named). The acceptance was also not conditional clearing of dues, including provident fund dues, as that was a consequence which would flow from the acceptance of the resignation. Thus, in pursuance of the offer and acceptance on 28.05.2003, the transaction was completed. The acceptance was also not conditional clearing of dues, including provident fund dues, as that was a consequence which would flow from the acceptance of the resignation. Thus, in pursuance of the offer and acceptance on 28.05.2003, the transaction was completed. Unlike the case in Shambhu Murari Sinha, this is not a case of a conditional offer with part offer being accepted, but rather, acceptance of the offer in the terms of the Scheme, with the consequences as envisaged under the Scheme of financial benefits flowing to the respondent on acceptance of the resignation.” 6. The materials on record disclose that the writ petitioner relied on the policy decision taken by Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries in their 59th Meeting held on 17th January 1995. The writ petitioner also raised a plea of discrimination in as much as the resignation tendered by one Kumar Mahesh Singh who was working under Central Coalfields Limited was accepted, but, after he lost the same Assembly Election of the year 2005 applied for reinstatement and was reinstated in service by Central Coalfields Limited. 7. The relevant extract of 59th Meeting dated 17th January 1995 reads as under : “... … … A point was raised by CCL that in case the contesting employees does not succeed, whether he should be taken in re-employment or not. It was decided that such of the employees who were not succeeded in the election may be re-employed, under the following conditions:- (i) The employee should approach in writing for re-employment within one month from the date at declaration of the election results. (ii) The employee concerned will be re-employed if he applies within one month of the declaration of the result and in case he does not succeed in the election, the period of his absence between the period of his resignation and re-employment will be treated as “dies-on”. (iii) In case an employee succeeds in the election and he completes the term of office his case should be taken up for re-employment. … … … ...” 8. In the present proceeding, the appellant has brought on record Minutes of Meeting dated 17th December 2004 to fortify its stand that Coal India Limited or its subsidiaries are not under any obligation to reappoint or reinstate any employee who had tendered resignation for contesting Elections. 9. … … … ...” 8. In the present proceeding, the appellant has brought on record Minutes of Meeting dated 17th December 2004 to fortify its stand that Coal India Limited or its subsidiaries are not under any obligation to reappoint or reinstate any employee who had tendered resignation for contesting Elections. 9. The extract of the relevant decision on this point taken in the Meeting dated 17th December 2004 reads as under : “1. Re-employment/Retirement of employees of CIL and subsidiaries who are/were defeated in General Election. The matter was deliberated at length and the decision taking 59th D (P)'s meet held on 17.01.1995 at Ranchi was reviewed. In partial modification of the earlier decision, it is unanimously decided taking government policy and guideline into consideration that there would be no obligation on the part of the subsidiaries of CIL to reappoint or reinstate any such employee who will contest election either for different local bodies or parliament and/or assembly, on tendering resignation which has been excepted by the organization (CIL or Subsidiaries).” 10. Mr. Sudarshan Srivastav, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, submits that before the learned writ Court the subsequent decision dated 17th December 2004 was not brought on record and, in any case, while exercising the powers under Clause 10 of Letters Patent of High Court of Judicature at Patna (as adopted by High Court of Jharkhand) this Court may refrain from interfering with an order of the learned Single Judge in circumstances of the case. 11. At the outset, we may indicate that the direction issued by the learned writ Court does not appear to be sustainable in law. Before the learned writ Court, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited took a stand that the decision contained in the Resolution dated 17th January 1995 was no longer in existence and not applicable in the case of the writ petitioner, still, the learned writ Court proceeded to pass the following direction : “Having gone through the rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 29/30.04.2010 is not tenable in the eyes of law. The contention of the learned counsel for the BCCL is not well founded and fit to be rejected. The contention of the learned counsel for the BCCL is not well founded and fit to be rejected. The rules and guidelines of the Coal India Limited are one and are implemented in all the subsidiaries of the Coal India Limited be that BCCL, CCL or ECIL. The minutes of the decision were forwarded to all the Director (Personnel) of the Coal India Limited including the BCCL, Dhanbad, which is apparent from Annexure-2 and as such, it cannot be said that the said decision is of another subsidiary i.e. CCL and it is not binding on BCCL. In view of the admitted fact by the respondents authorities in paragraph-8, the impugned order dated 29/30.04.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents authorities are directed to reconsider case of the petitioner for acceptance of joining after cancellation of the resignation letter. Needless to say that the entire exercise of reconsideration has to be done within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. This writ petition is allowed with aforesaid observations and directions.” 12. The reason for the error committed by the learned writ Court appears to be negligent approach of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited which did not produce the decision dated 17th December 2004 before the writ Court. 13. On 7th July 2015 when the writ petition was listed for hearing, the following order was passed by the learned writ Court : “Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the petitioner having been unsuccessful in the Legislative Assembly Elections had represented the authorities within time seeking his reemployment. The General Manager (P & IR) has communicated by letter dated 29/30.04.2010 rejecting the representation of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same is contrary to the note of discussions/decisions taken by the G.M.(P & IR) in the meeting held on 17.01.1995. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents seeks for 2 weeks time in order to file a counter affidavit. Time as prayed for is allowed. The learned counsel for the respondents is also directed to verify as to whether the letter dated 29/30.04.2010 is merely a forwarding letter informing the decision of the competent authority or there exists any other letter/order for which the claim of reemployment of the petitioner has been rejected. List this case on 04.08.2015.” 14. Time as prayed for is allowed. The learned counsel for the respondents is also directed to verify as to whether the letter dated 29/30.04.2010 is merely a forwarding letter informing the decision of the competent authority or there exists any other letter/order for which the claim of reemployment of the petitioner has been rejected. List this case on 04.08.2015.” 14. The order dated 5th August 2015 records that inspite of a direction issued to M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited no information was furnished to the learned writ Court. On that day, a prayer for one week's adjournment was made on behalf of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and the matter was adjourned for 14th August 2015 and thereafter the writ petition was listed on 21st August 2015. It appears that in absence of an affidavit furnishing correct and complete details, constrained, the learned writ Court disposed of the writ petition in the aforesaid terms vide order dated 17th February 2017. 15. We further find that by an order dated 20th February 2018 the writ petitioner was permitted to give joining on the post of Mining Sirdar. We are informed that the writ petitioner is still continuing in service. We further find that by an order dated 8th January 2018 passed in the present proceeding the application filed by M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited seeking an order staying operation of the direction issued by the learned writ Court has been declined. 16. We also take notice of the fact that the finding recorded by the learned writ Court that Kumar Mahesh Singh is a similarly situated employee is not under challenge in the present proceeding. We are informed that M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited has not chosen to challenge the order dated 29th January 2018 passed in Contempt Case (Civil) No.658 of 2017. It has also not challenged the order dated 8th January 2018 passed in I.A. No. 7529 of 2017 in L.P.A. No.483 of 2017. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to interfere with the direction dated 17th February 2017 of the learned writ Court, however, we make it clear that this shall not be treated as a precedence. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, L.P.A. No.483 of 2017 is dismissed.