ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to treat that the deceased employee as on duty from his joining until he attained the age of superannuation, i.e. 30.04.2019, and to grant all other promotional and consequential benefits. 2. Heard Sri T.P. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Koya Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences, appearing for respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- (a) Since the original petitioner by name Dr. B. Shankar Rao (hereinafter referred to as “deceased employee”) died during the pendency of the Writ Petition, his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners No.2 to 4. (b) The deceased employee joined as a Lecturer in the first respondent Institute on 01.11.1991 and worked till 09.10.1993. His post was redesignated as Assistant Professor, and he had been working since 10.10.1993. The first respondent, vide Proceedings, dated 29.04.1997, appointed the deceased as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care, on a temporary basis. The deceased employee accepted the said appointment on 12.05.1997, and his services were regularized with effect from 12.05.1997 vide Proceedings, dated 13.03.2000, and he was placed on probation for two years within a continuous period of three years from the date of regularization. He was declared to have satisfactorily completed the probationary period in the category of Assistant Professor in the Department of Anesthesiology, vide proceedings dated 14.05.2001. (c) While things stood thus, on account of some domestic issues, the deceased employee was on EL from 19.08.2003 to 06.09.2003 and reported to duty on 08.09.2003 in the forenoon. Subsequently, on 28.10.2003, due to unavoidable circumstances, he extended his leave till the end of November 2003, and the said letter was duly received by the first respondent’s office. However, the first respondent rejected his request for extension of leave for the said period and instructed him to join duty immediately. A show cause notice was issued vide proceedings, dated 14.05.2004, asking him to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his alleged unauthorized absence from 20.10.2003 within 15 days of the receipt of the same, in default, further disciplinary action would be initiated against him as per NIMS Employees Conduct Standing Order 1995. A show cause notice was issued vide proceedings, dated 14.05.2004, asking him to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his alleged unauthorized absence from 20.10.2003 within 15 days of the receipt of the same, in default, further disciplinary action would be initiated against him as per NIMS Employees Conduct Standing Order 1995. (d) Due to personal problems, the deceased employee tendered his resignation to his post as Assistant Professor, Anesthesiology, Intensive care, by addressing a letter to the 2 nd respondent on 16.06.2004 and requested that his terminal benefits be settled. The 1 st respondent on 16.07.2004 issued a letter, RC.No.1239/97/ACAD/A4, instructing him to pay three months salary in lieu of the notice period, for the purposes of taking further action to accept his resignation. Similar letters were issued on 07.08.2005, 01.03.2006 and 29.04.2006, respectively. The cumulative effect of the said letters was that inasmuch as he failed to pay three month’s salary in lieu of the notice period, the respondents have not taken any further action in accepting his resignation. Thus, he was in service as his resignation had not been accepted. On 22.05.2006, the deceased employee addressed a letter to the 2 nd respondent withdrawing his resignation, inter alia stating that the 2 nd respondent did not accept the resignation submitted by him while he was on EOL without pay. As such, he would like to continue in the Department of Anesthesiology in his original post. The respondents rejected his request to be permitted him to re-join in his post. The said action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal, inasmuch as there is no justification for refusing to accept request to re-join the Institute even before his resignation was accepted. (e) Having left with no option, he had deposited the three months salary in lieu of notice period by issuing a Cheque bearing No.732432, dated 23.06.2006 in the name of 2 nd respondent and requested to settle his terminal benefits and deposit them in his SB A/c. ABG 21206, maintained by him in AB, NIMS Branch. However, the respondents have neither accepted his resignation nor allowed him to resume duty. He had submitted several representations to the respondents praying them to allow him to resume duty, but the respondents, were not allowing him to join duties nor passing any orders on his representations. However, the respondents have neither accepted his resignation nor allowed him to resume duty. He had submitted several representations to the respondents praying them to allow him to resume duty, but the respondents, were not allowing him to join duties nor passing any orders on his representations. Hence, he filed the present Writ Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the original petitioner died during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the terminal benefits of the deceased may be granted to his legal representatives. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents filed a counter by contending as follows: (a) While the deceased employee was working as an Assistant Professor, he had submitted a leave application on 29.12.1994 without mentioning the period of leave. In the leave letter, it was stated that his daughter was admitted to the Hospital in Bombay for severe Gastroenteritis. The Institute granted four days earned leave from 28.12.1994 to 31.12.1994. On 16.12.1995, he had sent a letter to them requesting an extension of leave till the first week of March 1995, but he had not furnished an address for correspondence in Bombay. Subsequently salary was stopped. The leave application was refused by the administration and the deceased employee was directed to join duty. He had joined duty on 06.03.1995 and stated that he and his wife were attacked with Acute Gastroenteritis and could not join duties before 06.03.1995. (b) The deceased employee had requested the NIMS on 15.04.1995 to issue a “No Objection Certificate” for getting employment in some other places in India. Accordingly, the Institute had issued “No Objection Certificate.” Later, he had applied for C.L. for two days on 21 st and 22 nd April 1995. Accordingly, he was granted two days Casual Leave. Later, he sent a telegram to extend his leave without specifying the period. The Institute had rejected his request for extension of leave and directed him to join duties immediately. On receipt of the rejection order, he again made an application to the respondents to grant him six months E.O.L. (loss of pay). They immediately sent a letter asking him to join duty, as the leave on loss of pay was rejected vide letter dated 23.05.1995. The said letter also stated that, in the event of his failure to join duties, disciplinary action would be initiated against him by the respondents. They immediately sent a letter asking him to join duty, as the leave on loss of pay was rejected vide letter dated 23.05.1995. The said letter also stated that, in the event of his failure to join duties, disciplinary action would be initiated against him by the respondents. (c) The deceased employee had tendered resignation to the post of Assistant Professor held by him, on 12.06.1995. On receipt of resignation letter, the Institute had asked him to produce “No Due Certificate” pay excess salary paid and three months’ salary in lieu of notice period of resignation. But, he did not turn up with the “No Due Certificate” and did not pay the said amount to the Institute. The wife of the deceased employee Smt. B.V. Priyamvada, Manager (Legal), NABARD, Bombay, sent a letter to the Director on 21.07.1995 on the letterhead of NIMS, in which she stated that she was authorized to issue and submit the letter under the instructions of her husband. She noted that her husband had been working for the Ministry of Health, Saudi Arabia. It is also said that her husband formerly worked as an Assistant Professor at NIMS, and he applied for Casual Leaves on 21.04.1995 and 22.04.1995, and subsequently extended leave on loss of pay due to some domestic circumstances. Her husband also received the letters of the NIMS rejecting her husband’s leave. The letter also states that they submitted their resignation with immediate effect on 12.06.1995. The Institute asked the deceased employee to pay three months’ salary in lieu of notice for resignation and produce a “No Due Certificate” in order to relieve him. Finally, the deceased employee had stated that he was withdrawing his resignation tendered on 12.06.1995 and requested the Institute to grant two years EOL on loss of pay to enable him to continue in foreign assignments in Saudi Arabia. (d) Later, the deceased employee submitted a letter to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of A.P. on 01.09.1995 with a request to grant Extraordinary Leave for two years to continue in Saudi Arabia. As per rules, an employee has to request his employer only for the sanction of leave, etc., However, he had sent a request letter for the sanction of EOL to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, which is irregular and a violation of discipline by an employee. As per rules, an employee has to request his employer only for the sanction of leave, etc., However, he had sent a request letter for the sanction of EOL to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, which is irregular and a violation of discipline by an employee. The Institute had issued a letter to him on 18.09.1995 stating that his resignation had already been accepted and that the issuance of a formal order is pending due to non-submission of the “No Due Certificate” by him. (e) The Institute had issued a Notification to fill up the vacant posts of faculty, including the post of Assistant Professor in Anesthesiology, which became vacant due to the resignation by the petitioner during the month of 1997. The deceased employee applied for the said vacant post, was selected, and appointed to it. He joined as an Assistant Professor on 12.05.1997. Subsequently, the Institute had asked him to pay the dues due by him to the NIMS for the former period of Assistant Professor, for which he requested the Institute to permit him to pay the said amount in instalments through his letter, dated 08.09.1997. The Institute allowed him to pay the dues in six monthly instalments. (f) While working as Assistant Professor, i.e. 2 nd time appointment, the deceased employee had applied on 26.02.1998 to the Director to issue him a bona fide Certificate to get Fellowship in the Royal College of Anesthesiology in the U.K. Accordingly, he was issued the Certificate of bona fide. On 19.08.2003, the deceased employee had requested the Institute to issue him a “No Objection Certificate” to attend an interview abroad. The Institute issued a “No Objection Certificate” on 22.08.2003. He applied for 30 days of EL from 20.09.2003. Before submitting said leave letter, he asked NIMS to grant him EOL for two years, as he had been appointed as a Consultant at Holberton Hospital, West Indies. The institute rejected his request for EOL, as NIMS required his services, and he absented himself from duty w.e.f. 21.09.2003. (g) The deceased employee submitted a letter to the Institute on 28.10.2003 to extend his leave till the end of November 2003. The authorities rejected his request vide NIMS letter dated 07.11.2003 and were instructed to join duty immediately, failing which, would initiate necessary disciplinary action against him. (g) The deceased employee submitted a letter to the Institute on 28.10.2003 to extend his leave till the end of November 2003. The authorities rejected his request vide NIMS letter dated 07.11.2003 and were instructed to join duty immediately, failing which, would initiate necessary disciplinary action against him. Since there was no response from him, the Institute had issued a show cause notice on 14.05.2004, asking why the disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his prolonged unauthorized absence from duty. In response to the Show Cause Notice, he resigned from the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, on 16.06.2004. On the same day, the Institute immediately sent him a letter requires him to pay three months’ salary in lieu of notice for his resignation. The petitioner did not respond to the letter dated 16.06.2004. The Institute issued a reminder to him on 07.08.2005 to pay three months’ salary and submit a No Due Certificate to relieve him of service. Once again, he was reminded on 01.03.2006 to pay the said amount. Finally, he paid an amount of Rs.99,198/- on 23.06.2006 towards three months’ salary in lieu of notice for resignation, but he failed to produce “No Due Certificate.” (h) On 17.03.2008, the deceased employee requested the NIMS to permit him to join duties as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Anesthesiology, he also states that he had not claimed any wages for the earlier period. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the NIMS had issued a paper Notification on 03.06.2006 calling applications for the vacant posts of faculty, including the post of Assistant Professor in Anesthesiology, due to the resignation of the deceased employee. In response to the Notification, the deceased employee also applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Anesthesiology and was called to attend an interview on 19.07.2006 by the Selection Committee. He got only 9 marks out of 20, and others got higher marks than him. In view of the fact that the deceased employee was unable to complete the selection process successfully. He was not selected for the post of Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology. The deceased employee, having faced the interview and unsuccessful in the selection process on 19.07.2006, strangely suppressed the said fact before this Court and prayed to be continued in service. In view of the fact that the deceased employee was unable to complete the selection process successfully. He was not selected for the post of Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology. The deceased employee, having faced the interview and unsuccessful in the selection process on 19.07.2006, strangely suppressed the said fact before this Court and prayed to be continued in service. The same cannot be granted in view of the admitted fact borne on record that the deceased employee was not in service of the respondent herein since 2004 and prayer of the deceased employee to join back in NIMS on duty as an Assistant Professor, Anesthesiology Department of Anesthesiology in Intensive Care and payment of back wages and consequential benefits as claimed by him cannot be granted at all by this Hon'ble Court. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that in the application made to the post of Assistant Professor, the deceased employee had given the particulars of his employment during the period of absence of the petitioner at NIMS stating that he had worked at Saudi Arabia and West Indies etc., The same reflect his conduct and also an attempt on his part to suppress the facts before this Hon'ble Court by projecting a misleading version before the Hon'ble Court. NIMS already accepted his resignation, and he had also paid Rs.99,198/- in lieu of the three months’ notice period. Since he had failed to produce a “No Due Certificate” from the concerned departments of NIMS, no formal relieving orders were issued. The deceased employee had suppressed all the facts before this Court regarding his unauthorized and prolonged absence from duty and his going to abroad for gainful employment. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. FINDINGS OF THE COURT: 8. The undisputed facts are that the deceased employee joined as a Lecturer in the first respondent Institute on 01.11.1991 and worked till 09.10.1993. His post was re- designated as Assistant Professor and he had been working from 10.10.1993 onwards. The first respondent, vide Proceedings, dated 29.04.1997, appointed the deceased as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care, on a temporary basis, and his services were regularized with effect from 12.05.1997. The deceased employee was on EL from 19.08.2003 to 06.09.2003 and reported to duty on 08.09.2003. The first respondent, vide Proceedings, dated 29.04.1997, appointed the deceased as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care, on a temporary basis, and his services were regularized with effect from 12.05.1997. The deceased employee was on EL from 19.08.2003 to 06.09.2003 and reported to duty on 08.09.2003. Subsequently, on 28.10.2003, he extended his leave till the end of November 2003, and the said letter was duly received by the first respondent’s office. However, the first respondent rejected his request for extension of leave for the said period and instructed him to join duty immediately. A show cause notice was issued vide proceedings dated 14.05.2004, asking him to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his alleged unauthorized absence from 20.10.2003, within 15 days of receipt of the same; in default, further disciplinary action would be initiated against him. 9. Due to personal problems, the deceased employee tendered his resignation to his post as an Assistant Professor, Anesthesiology, Intensive care, by addressing a letter to the 2 nd respondent on 16.06.2004 and requested to settle his terminal benefits due to him. The 1st respondent on 16.07.2004 issued a letter, RC.No.1239/97/ACAD/A4, instructing him to pay three months salary in lieu of the notice period, for the purpose of taking further action to accept his resignation. Similar letters were issued on 07.08.2005, 01.03.2006 and 29.04.2006, respectively. The cumulative effect of the said letters was that inasmuch as he failed to pay three months salary in lieu of the notice period, the respondents have not taken any further action for accepting his resignation. Thus, he was in service as his resignation had not been accepted. 10. On 22.05.2006, the deceased employee addressed a letter to the 2 nd respondent withdrawing his resignation, inter alia stating that the resignation submitted by him while he was on EOL without pay was not accepted. As such, he would like to continue in the Department of Anesthesiology in his original post. The respondents rejected his request to be permitted to re-join his post. Having left with no option, he had deposited the three months salary in lieu of the notice period by issuing a Cheque bearing No.732432, dated 23.06.2006, in the name of the 2 nd respondent and had requested that his terminal benefits be settled. 11. The respondents rejected his request to be permitted to re-join his post. Having left with no option, he had deposited the three months salary in lieu of the notice period by issuing a Cheque bearing No.732432, dated 23.06.2006, in the name of the 2 nd respondent and had requested that his terminal benefits be settled. 11. The respondent authorities did not take any action against the resignation letter till 22.05.2006, and they simply sent the letter to pay three months salary towards the notice period. Not taking any action on the resignation, the petitioner made an application on 22.05.2006, withdrawing his resignation and informed the authorities by way of a letter, intending to join duty. For upon acceptance of the resignation and upon intending to join duty, the petitioner paid the amount of Rs.99,198/-, which was realized by the NIMS on 27.06.2006. Even after receiving the notice period amount, the respondent authorities neither accepted the resignation nor accepted his rejoining in duty. 12. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the petitioner died on 13.09.2019. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the employee is at liberty to withdraw his resignation before the expiry of the effective date. Even in case where no effective date is stipulated, the resignation can be withdrawn before the acceptance of the resignation is communicated. To fortify his argument, he relied upon the order of the erstwhile A.P. High Court in the case of Sudha Nagaraj K. Vs. Chief Manager, Andhra Bank and another, 1996 (2) ALT 293 wherein it was held as under: “12. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court it has to be held that it is always open for the employee to withdraw his resignation, before the expiry of the effective date. Even in case where no effective date is stipulated, the resignation can be withdrawn before the acceptance of the resignation is communicated.” 14. In the instant case also, the deceased employee due to personal problems, tendered his resignation to his post as an Assistant Professor, Anesthesiology, Intensive care, by addressing letter to the 2 nd respondent on 16.06.2004 and requested to settle his terminal benefits due to him, but the respondent authorities did not take any action against the said resignation letter till 22.05.2006 and they sent the letter to pay three months salary towards notice period. No-taking any action on the resignation, the petitioner was constrained to make an application on 22.05.2006 withdrawing his resignation and informed the authorities that he would rejoin duty and paid the amount of Rs.99,198/- which was realized by the NIMS on 27.06.2006. Though the issues are one and the same, but the petitioner did not comply with the entire process within the period i.e. payment of three months’ salary in lieu of the notice period and also not submitted the ‘No due certificate’ from all the departments. 15. With regard to counting of the service period, whether it ends from the date of resignation or from the date of acceptance of the resignation, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court, in the case of Hyderali Vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 02 KL CK 0030, decided on 08.02.2001 wherein the Court relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Power Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Pramod Kumar Bhatia, wherein the Apex Court held as follows: “It is now well legal position that unless the employee is relieved of the duty, after acceptance of the offer of voluntary retirement or resignation, jural relationship of the employee and to employer does not come to an end. Since the order accepting the voluntary retirement was a conditional one, the condition sought to have been complied with… Before the conditions could be complied with, the appellant withdrew the scheme. Consequently, the order accepting voluntary retirement did not become effective.” 16. In the instant case, though it is not a Voluntary Retirement scheme, the deceased employee sent a letter of resignation, but without accepting his resignation, the authorities kept silent for nearly two years, which is bad in law. For acceptance of the resignation if any condition stipulated in the appointment order, the authorities should have informed the deceased employee within no time. 17. Learned counsel for respondents vehemently argued that the deceased employee had not come to the Court with clean hands, and he suppressed the material facts, and he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others , 2008 (12) SCC 481 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “38. Steel Authority of India Limited and others , 2008 (12) SCC 481 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “38. … As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play ”hide and seek” or to “pick and choose” the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the Writ Jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because “the court knows the law but not facts.” The reason for to referring the above case law by the respondents is that the deceased employee had not furnished anything about his employment abroad during the period of his unauthorized and prolonged absence. While the deceased employee was working as an Assistant Professor, i.e. 2nd time appointment, he applied on 26.09.1998 to the Director to issue him a Bona fide certificate to get a Fellowship in the Royal College of Anaesthesiology in the UK. He was issued the certificate of Bona fide. On 19.08.2003, the deceased employee requested that a No Objection Certificate to attend an interview at abroad. The Institute has issued the same on 22.08.2003. The above mentioned facts were not disclosed in the Writ Petition. Hence, the respondent on this ground alone prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 18. When the matter was taken up for hearing, after observing all the facts above, this Court felt that both sides did not act properly. Moreover, the original petitioner expired. Accordingly, this Court asked both counsel on record as to whether an amicable settlement was possible between the parties and requested that they submit their calculation memos. Pursuant to the same, on 30.08.2025. The respondent authorities placed the calculation of terminal benefits about for the deceased employee regarding gratuity up to September 2003, GPF till September 2003, and GSLI, Altogether, they are ready to pay Rs.1,67,744/-. Pursuant to the same, on 30.08.2025. The respondent authorities placed the calculation of terminal benefits about for the deceased employee regarding gratuity up to September 2003, GPF till September 2003, and GSLI, Altogether, they are ready to pay Rs.1,67,744/-. But the deceased employee tendered his resignation to his post as an Assistant Professor, Anesthesiology, Intensive care, by addressing letter to the 2 nd respondent on 16.06.2004 and requested to settle his terminal benefits due to him, but the respondent authorities did not take any action against the said resignation letter till 22.05.2006. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased employee was in service till September 2003 as per the calculation submitted by the respondents. As such, the calculation submitted by the respondents appears to be incorrect. 19. The petitioners’ counsel also submitted calculation Memo as per G.O.Ms.No.56 Finance (HRM.V) Department, dt.11.06.2021, which is applicable from 01.04.2020, with regard to gratuity with interest @9%p.a. calculated atRs.17,95,000/- and GPF amount with interest @12% p.a. from 2006 to 2007 amounting to Rs.13,23,903/- and also mentioned in the said calculation memo, the Rs.99,198/- paid by the deceased employee for three months notice period has to be paid with 9% interest, full salary from 18.08.2008 till the age of superannuation i.e. 30.04.2019, which comes to Rs.91,41,564/-, and pension to the deceased employee from 01.05.2019 till 12.09.2019 at Rs.2,50,000/-, and family pension at Rs.26,25,000/-. In all, Rs.1,51,35,467/- . 20. Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the G.O.Ms.No.56, dt.11.06.2021, calculated the amounts, but the said G.O., specifically mentioned in para No.4, that these orders shall come into effect w.e.f. 01.04.2020 only. Whereas the original petitioner died in 2019. He left the respondents services in 2004. Hence, the calculation cannot be looked into in view of the above G.O. Without taking into consideration of both the calculation memos, this Court feels that in view of the negligent acts of both sides, the deceased employee’s family should not suffer. At the same time, the deceased’s family cannot claim huge amounts from the respondents as the deceased employee suppressed the material fact of gainful employment during his unauthorized absence. 21. At the same time, the deceased’s family cannot claim huge amounts from the respondents as the deceased employee suppressed the material fact of gainful employment during his unauthorized absence. 21. Under the above circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents, in all, to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) to the deceased family within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 22. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.