ORDER : REKHA BORANA, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure-5) whereby the resignation of the petitioner stood accepted with retrospective effect i.e., w.e.f. 01.11.2024. The consequential office order dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure-8) is also under challenge whereby the petitioner was relieved and vide which, the accounts officer was directed to recover the amount paid qua salary to the petitioner since 01.11.2024. 2. A challenge has also been laid to communication dated 10.10.2025 (Annexure-9) whereby the application as submitted by the petitioner for withdrawal of his resignation stood rejected. 3. The facts are that the petitioner who was working as a Professor of Cardiology at Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur submitted his resignation vide application dated 02.10.2024 w.e.f. 01.11.2024. However, no decision/action on the said application was taken by the competent authority and the petitioner therefore preferred a writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6754/2025) before this Court. 4. Vide order dated 01.04.2025, the Court, while disposing of the writ petition, directed the competent authority of respondent Department to take a decision on pending application dated 02.10.2024 as filed by the petitioner. The Court directed to decide the application as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of order. 5. However, no decision within the time stipulated/directed by the Court was taken and in such circumstances, vide application dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure-3), the petitioner prayed that he be transferred to Medical College, Jaipur as his father who was residing at Jaipur, was suffering from serious ailment. An email to the said effect was also forwarded by the petitioner. 6. No action on the above application was also taken by the respondent Department. However, vide communication dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure-5) his resignation was accepted w.e.f. 01.11.2024. Vide communication dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure-6), the petitioner was informed of the acceptance of his resignation. 7. Soon after the receipt of the above communication, vide application dated 19.07.2025 (Annexure-7), the petitioner submitted that as no decision on his application for resignation was taken by the Department within the stipulated time, he prayed for transfer, which request was also not adhered to. In the changed circumstances, the petitioner was desirous to continue and hence prayed for withdrawal of order dated 16.07.2025. 8. In the changed circumstances, the petitioner was desirous to continue and hence prayed for withdrawal of order dated 16.07.2025. 8. However, the said request of the petitioner stood rejected vide office order dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure-8) on the pretext that the order accepting his resignation was passed in compliance of the orders of the Court and hence, after having once been relieved, in terms of Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1951’), his application for continuance in service cannot be accepted. 9. Aggrieved of the above, the present writ petition has been filed. 10. Counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in Andhra Bank Vs. K. Sudha Nagraj ;1999 SCC (L&S) 793 submitted that the petitioner was entitled to withdraw his application for resignation at any time before the relieving order being passed. Evidently, the relieving order was passed on 22.07.2025 whereas the petitioner had already withdrawn his application vide communication dated 19.07.2025. Therefore the rejection of the application for withdrawal of resignation as well as acceptance of his resignation is totally illegal and erroneous. 11. Counsel further submitted that the action of the Department is also discriminatory as in identical circumstances pertaining to one Dr. Deepak Maheshwari, the incumbent was not only permitted to continue but even his application for withdrawal of the resignation was accepted. 12. Counsel further submitted that as no decision on the application was taken within the time as granted by the Court, the respondents definitely could not have acted upon the same after the said stipulated period and the orders impugned are liable to be set aside being contrary to the directions passed by the Court. 13. Counsel lastly submitted that the petitioner did continue to work till 22.07.2025 and the direction to recover the amount paid qua salary to him is clearly arbitrary and in contravention to the basic principles of law. 14. Per contra counsel for the respondent Department submitted that once the resignation of the petitioner was accepted, he no longer continued in job and hence his application for withdrawal of resignation could not have been accepted. So far as the acceptance of the resignation letter is concerned, counsel submitted that the same was in compliance of the directions of this Court. So far as the acceptance of the resignation letter is concerned, counsel submitted that the same was in compliance of the directions of this Court. Regarding the delay caused in accepting the resignation, counsel submitted that the same was because of mandatory verifications relating to service records, no dues etc. 15. So far the resignation having been accepted with a retrospective effect, that is, w.e.f. 01.11.2024 is concerned, Counsel submitted that the same was as per the request of the petitioner himself in his application for resignation. 16. Heard the counsels. Perused the record. 17. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6754/2025 filed by the petitioner, the Court directed as under : “Without commenting on the merits of the case, in view of the aforesaid submission, the competent authority of respondents is directed to take a decision on the pending application dated 02.10.2024 (Annx.2) filed by the petitioner either way by passing an appropriate administrative order in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from today.” 18. A bare perusal of the above order makes it crystal clear that the respondents were directed to take a decision on the pending application of the petitioner in either manner, i.e., either to accept or reject it. The order nowhere essentially directs for acceptance of the resignation letter. The direction was to pass an appropriate administrative order in accordance with law. In that view, the reason as assigned by the respondent authorities while accepting the resignation letter that it was in compliance of the Court’s direction is totally fallacious and incorrect on the face of it. The direction of the Court was to pass an appropriate order and not a mandate to accept the resignation. 19. Further, the above order, in unequivocal terms, directed for a decision to be taken expeditiously but not later than three months from the date of the order. Meaning thereby, the respondents could not have passed any order after a period of three months in compliance of the said order. Admittedly, the resignation of the petitioner has been accepted vide order dated 16.07.2025 which is evidently after a period of three months from 01.04.2025. The same therefore, in no terms, can be termed to be in compliance of orders of the Court. 20. Admittedly, the resignation of the petitioner has been accepted vide order dated 16.07.2025 which is evidently after a period of three months from 01.04.2025. The same therefore, in no terms, can be termed to be in compliance of orders of the Court. 20. Analysing the above proposition on the touchstone of basic principles of law too, this Court is of the clear view that the respondents, having not acted upon the application for resignation within the stipulated time, it definitely led to a waiver of their right to do so. Further, no decision having been taken within the stipulated period, it definitely led to a belief to the petitioner that his request for resignation has been not accepted/rejected. 21. Once this Court has held that the respondents were not entitled to act upon the application for resignation after a period of three months from the order dated 01.04.2025, the fact whether the petitioner prayed for withdrawal of his application before or after passing of the order whereby his resignation was accepted, becomes redundant. The present is a clear case where the petitioner was, by inaction of the respondent authorities, made to believe that his application has not been accepted. Further, the petitioner was permitted to continue in service till 22.07.2025, i.e., the date, the impugned order was passed. In overall circumstances, it was a clear case of legitimate expectancy and belief wherein the petitioner was made to believe that his resignation has not been accepted and hence he is entitled to continue in service. By all means, acceptance of the resignation vide order dated 16.07.2025 was clearly not within the domain of the respondent authorities and deserves to be quashed on the said sole ground. 22. The order impugned also deserves interference because of clear discrimination on the part of the respondent authorities. As is evident on record, vide order dated 06.07.2017 (Annexure-10), the order whereby the resignation of one Dr. Deepak Maheshwari was accepted by the respondent Department, was withdrawn. Interestingly, the resignation which was accepted vide order dated 20.10.2016, was withdrawn vide order dated 06.07.2017 i.e. after a period of about nine months. Therein, the incumbent had even discontinued from service from the date of acceptance of his resignation. In such circumstances, the action of the respondent authorities is not only discriminatory but arbitrary on the face of it. No employer can act discriminatory qua its employees. Therein, the incumbent had even discontinued from service from the date of acceptance of his resignation. In such circumstances, the action of the respondent authorities is not only discriminatory but arbitrary on the face of it. No employer can act discriminatory qua its employees. The reply as filed by the respondents also does not justify as to how the case of Dr. Deepak Maheshwari is different from that of the present petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the present petitioner rather stands on a better pedestal as he continued in service till 22.07.2025 and further, he moved an application for withdrawal of his resignation on 19.07.2025, i.e., prior to his relieving order being passed. Therefore, the stand of the respondents that the petitioner did not remain in job after his resignation having been accepted also proves to be incorrect as the petitioner was not relieved till 22.07.2025 and he continued in job till the said date. 23. In view of above analysis and overall facts, orders impugned dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure-5) and 22.07.2025 (Annexure-8) are hereby quashed and set aside. Communication dated 10.10.2025 (Annexure-9) is also quashed and set aside. It is hereby held that the petitioner shall be entitled to be permitted to continue in service. Appropriate orders be passed within a period of two weeks from the receipt of the copy of the present order. 24. Needless to observe that the period of break in services shall not be detrimental qua the service benefits to which the petitioner would be entitled in future. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any salary qua the period he remained out of service on the principle of ‘No work no pay’. 25. The petition stands allowed in above terms. 26. Stay application as well as the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.