1. Employee withdrew resignation but was later deemed relieved from service for alleged absence while the workplace was non-functional. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1416
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P.Mohapatra : S.P.Kurdukar : S.R.Babu
Vinod Bhanti
Versus
State Of Bihar
Case No. : 8562 of 1997
Date of Decision : 12/2/99
Important Points
An employee cannot be deemed relieved from service for absence if the workplace was non-functional and the resignation was withdrawn before acceptance. Such employees are entitled to continuity of service, but not back wages for the period they did not actually work.
Subject
Service Law - Termination and Continuity of Service
Headnote
(A) Service Law - Deemed relief from service - Absence from duty - Withdrawal of resignation - If a resignation is withdrawn before acceptance and the workplace is non-functional during the period of alleged absence, the employee cannot be deemed to have been relieved from service on the grounds of absence. (Para 5)
(B) Back wages - Continuity of service - Where an employee is unable to work because the center or office is non-functional, the employee is entitled to continuity of service and consequential benefits, but is not entitled to back wages for the period during which no actual work was performed. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
An employee of a government-run center submitted a resignation but withdrew it before it was accepted. The center subsequently became non-functional for several years. The employee later resumed work in another department and continued in service. Years later, the government issued an order deeming the employee relieved from service, citing absence for more than five years during the period the center was non-functional. The High Court dismissed the employee's challenge to this order.
Findings of Court:
The government was incorrect in holding that the employee was absent for more than five years since the center was non-functional during that period and the resignation had been withdrawn. Furthermore, the employee had resumed work and continued to serve until the deemed relief order was passed.
Issues: Whether the employee could be deemed relieved from service due to absence during a period when the center was non-functional and whether he was entitled to back wages for that period.
Ratio Decidendi: An employee cannot be deemed relieved for absence if the workplace is non-functional and the resignation was withdrawn before acceptance. While continuity of service is granted in such cases, back wages are not permissible if no actual work was performed due to the non-functionality of the center.
Result: Appeal succeeds and the impugned judgments and orders of the High Court are set aside.
(B) Back wages - Continuity of service - Where an employee is unable to work because the center or office is non-functional, the employee is entitled to continuity of service and consequential benefits, but is not entitled to back wages for the period during which no actual work was performed. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
An employee of a government-run center submitted a resignation but withdrew it before it was accepted. The center subsequently became non-functional for several years. The employee later resumed work in another department and continued in service. Years later, the government issued an order deeming the employee relieved from service, citing absence for more than five years during the period the center was non-functional. The High Court dismissed the employee's challenge to this order.
Findings of Court:
The government was incorrect in holding that the employee was absent for more than five years since the center was non-functional during that period and the resignation had been withdrawn. Furthermore, the employee had resumed work and continued to serve until the deemed relief order was passed.
Issues: Whether the employee could be deemed relieved from service due to absence during a period when the center was non-functional and whether he was entitled to back wages for that period.
Ratio Decidendi: An employee cannot be deemed relieved for absence if the workplace is non-functional and the resignation was withdrawn before acceptance. While continuity of service is granted in such cases, back wages are not permissible if no actual work was performed due to the non-functionality of the center.
Result: Appeal succeeds and the impugned judgments and orders of the High Court are set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether an employee is deemed relieved from service due to prolonged absence when the workplace was non-functional and resignation was withdrawn. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Withdrawal of resignation and the non-functional status of the workplace negate the finding of unauthorized absence justifying deemed relief from service. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Deemed relief from service for absence is unsustainable if the workplace was non-functional and the employee's resignation had been withdrawn. (Para 5 )
5. Order deeming employee relieved quashed; continuity of service granted, but back wages denied for the period the workplace was non-functional. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
6. Can an employee be deemed relieved from service for prolonged absence if the workplace was non-functional?
No. If the workplace is non-functional, the employee cannot be held responsible for not working, and such absence cannot be used to deem them relieved from service. (Para 5 )
7. What is the effect of withdrawing a resignation letter before its acceptance?
Once a resignation is withdrawn, the employee cannot be deemed to have been relieved from service based on that resignation or subsequent absence if the circumstances justify the absence. (Para 5 )
8. Is an employee entitled to back wages for a period when they did not work because the workplace was non-functional?
No. While the employee may be entitled to continuity of service and associated benefits, back wages are denied for periods where no actual work was performed due to the workplace being non-functional. (Para 7 )
(1) THIS civil appeal is directed against the judgment dated May 1, 1996 rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No. 776 of 1995 affirming the judgment of the learned single Judge.
(2) THE relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly summarised as under: The appellant joined as Orthotist and Prothotist at the Artificial Limb Centre, Patna run by the Red Cross Society. This Centre was taken over by the Government of Bihar. This Centre was thereafter transferred to the Health Department of the Government of Bihar. The appellant came to be confirmed on October 11, 1977 with effect from September 22, 1977. The appellant was asked by the Professor and Head of the Orthopaedics Department, Medical College Hospital to take lectures in Patna Medical College Hospital. It appears that the appellant on November 6, 1981 submitted his letter of resignation to be effective from November 30, 1981. Before the acceptance of the resignation letter by the Government the appellant on December 6, 1981 withdrew the same. The appellant thereafter came to be transferred to Patna Medical College Hospital in the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Thus the appellant continued in service.
(3) ON April 3, 1988 the appellant joined the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department Respondent 4 wrote to the State Government that since the appellants resignation was not accepted, he may be asked to start the Rehabilitation Centre. Respondent 4 pursued this matter on the same lines and requested the Government to allow the appellant to rejoin at the Artificial Limb Centre which was closed down some three years back so that the said Centre would become functional. In view of this correspondence resting with the Government, Respondent 4 also asked the Government to release the salary of the appellant. From the record it appears that the appellant was awarded certificate of honour m recognition of his good services during the past 25 years at the Limb Centre. However, on May 24, 1994-the Government informed the Professor and Head of the Department Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department), Patna Medical College Hospital that although the appellants resignation was not accepted but as he was absent for more than 5 years from December 6, 1981 till April 11, 1988 he would be deemed to have been relieved from service. Consequently, the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation of Patna Medical Hospital informed the appellant that he would be deemed to have been relieved from the Limb Centre workshop.
(4) AGGRIEVED by this order the appellant preferred a writ petition claiming certain reliefs. The learned single Judge by the judgment and order dated July 26, 1995 dismissed the said writ petition The letters patent appeal filed by the appellant met with the same fate. It is against this judgment of the High Court the appellant has filed this civil appeal
(5) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that after having withdrawn the resignation the appellant could not be deemed to have been relieved in view of the facts and circumstances of the case that the Centre was not functional during December 6, 1981 till April 11, 1988. In addition to this the appellant was allowed to resume work from April 3, 1988 and continued to work till he was deemed to have been relieved from service vide order dated May 24, 1994. In our opinion, the material on record does not indicate that the appellant was absent from the service for more than 5 years. In these circumstances, the Government was totally wrong in holding that the appellant was absent for more than 5 years and therefore he would be deemed to have been relieved from service.
(6) THE learned single Judge of the Patna High Court as well as the Division Bench did not refer to these aspects while dismissing the cause of the appellant. Since this error is apparen
