Through the instant writ petition, petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents ('CDA ') to accept his resignation and release salaries/arrears till the period of expiry of contract i.e. 10.1 1.2013.
2. Precisely , relevant facts are that the petitioner joined the CDA as Project Director (Civil) on contract basis for a period of two years, extendable up to the life of the Project; that after the expiry of initial period, his services were extended vide Office Order dated 11.11.2009, 17.06.2010 and 17.11.201 1 respec tively; that on account of a foot injury , petitioner was unable to continue and served the CDA with a notice of termination as per agreement but the department stopped his salaries for the period 01.06.2012 to 30.09.2012 and did not take any action on his request for resignation, thus is entitled to payment of salaries till the expiry of contract i.e. 10.1 1.2013.
3. During pendency of instant writ petition, on the preceding date i.e. 17.03.2022 learned counsel for CDA produced copy of Office Order dated 30.05.2018 whereby the resignation tendered by the petitioner had been accepted w.e.f. 01.10.2012 in terms of clause-14 of the Office Memorandum dated 05.11.2007 and the petitioner was struck off from the strength of CDA. In addition, it was also stipulated that the salaries of the petitioner for the period 01.06.2012 to 03.09.2012 will be released immediately .
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while agreeing with the contents of the Office Order ibid further prays that in terms of clause-14 of the appointment letter , petitioner is entitled to one month' s salary in lieu of notice.
5. Clause 14 reads as under:- "The appointment on contract shall be liable to termination on one month' s notice by either side or salary in lieu thereof."
6. Under the clause ibid, the contract was held liable to termination by either party subject to one month' s notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof. If the petitioner intends to revoke the contract, he has to give one month' s notice or pay salary in lieu of said period and vice versa. In the present case, it was the petitioner who asked for severing of the contract through a written resignation. The action initiated by the petitioner would, thus constitutes 'notice' within the meaning of Clause-14 ibid where under either party , who intends to terminate the contract had to serve one months' notice or pay one month salary in lieu thereof. Had the departmen t terminated the services of the petitioner forthwith, in that eventuality , one month' s salary , as prayed for, would be admissible to the petitioner while in the instant case, petitioner himself resorted termination through notice 'resig nation' which was answered in affirmative with payment of arrears of salaries. The request of the petitioner , to this extent, therefore, is accordingly repelled.
7. In view of above, no further proceedi ngs in the instant writ petition are warra nted. The same is accordingly disposed of.