Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Dr. Mrs. Suman V. Jain – Appellant
Versus
Marwadi Sammelan through its Secretary and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1480 of 2012
Decided On : 20-02-2024
Service Law – Resignation – Prospective or intending resignation would be complete and operative on arrival of indicated future date in absence of anything contrary in terms and conditions of employment or contract – Intimation sent in writing to Competent Authority by incumbent employee of his intention or proposal to resign from his office/post from a future specified date can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective – In case at hand, unconditional resignation waiving requirement of six months’ notice as demanded by Trust was not submitted by appellant – Without prior consent, acceptance of resignation using words final, binding and irrevocable was unilateral – Appellant was having locus to withdraw resignation prior to effective date of resignation – There was no implied contract and understanding with prior consent – Withdrawal of such resignation by appellant prior to effective date is permissible – Orders passed by College Tribunal and High Court set aside. (Para 12, 21, 22, 27 and 31)
Facts of the case:
Following questions arise for determination before this Court:
(A) Whether withdrawal of resignation submitted by appellant prior to the effective date ought to have been permitted?
(B) Whether letter of Management accepting resignation was final, binding and irrevocable and rejection of the request for withdrawal of such resignation was in accordance with law?
(C) Whether in the facts of the case, what relief could be granted to the Appellant?
Findings of Court:
Retiral and pensionary benefits should be calculated and paid accordingly including arrears of pension. Said exercise be completed within a period of four months from date of this judgment. On failure to pay retiral benefits/pension and arrears thereof within time as specified, appellant shall be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. The instant appeal arises out of the judgment dated 04.07.2008, passed by the Division Bench of the ‘High Court of Judicature at Bombay’ in Appeal No. 63 of 2008, whereby the Division Bench dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and confirmed the order dated 08.08.2006 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1611 of 2004. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant being aggrieved by an order dated 30.04.2004 passed by the ‘Mumbai University and College Tribunal, Mumbai’ (hereinafter referred to as “College Tribunal”) in ‘Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2003’. Before the College Tribunal, the appellant filed an appeal to quash the order dated 10.09.2003 passed by respondent No. 1 “Marwadi Sammelan Trust” (hereinafter referred to as “Trust”) rejecting her request for withdrawal of resignation vide letter dated 09.09.2003. As such, this appeal is arising out of the orders passed by the three fora before whom the challenge was made by the appellant to the rejection of withdrawal of her prospective resignation, prior to the effective date, and the rejection of her prayer for rejoining the duties.
FINDINGS OF THE COLLEGE TRIBUNAL
2. Assailing the rejection of request for withdrawal of the prospective resignation prior to the effective date, appellant preferred an Appeal No. 51 of 2003 before the College Tribunal. The College Tribunal vide judgment dated 30.04.2004 was of the opinion that since it was not an order of dismissal, removal or termination of service, therefore, the appeal was not maintainable under Section 59(1) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “1994 Act”) and on such, the question of limitation under Section 59(2) does not arise. The College Tribunal having found that the appeal is not maintainable, even delved into the question of withdrawal of the prospective resignation before the effective date on merits. After appreciating the facts, it was held in law that the prospective resignation can be withdrawn before the expiry of the intended date. However, on facts, it was held that there was an implied understanding between the parties’ prohibiting withdrawal of resignation. Hence, according to the College Tribunal, the present case fell within the exception in the judgment of the House of Lords in the case of The Rev. Oswald Joseph Reichel vs. The Right Rev. John Fielder, (1889) House of Lords XIV 249 and hence, the College Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
3. The said judgment was challenged by filing a Writ Petition No. 1611 of 2004 before the Bombay High Court. Learned Single Judge considered the question as to whether a right to withdraw the prospective resignation can be given up or abandoned? While considering the same, learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment of Rev. Oswald (supra) and after quoting the same, observed that the right to withdraw the prospective resignation is capable of being given up or waived off by the person who holds that right. Later, the Court referred to the judgment on the principle of ‘estoppel’ and ‘waiver’ and in view of the letters dated 28.03.2003, 08.04.2003 and looking to the conduct of the appellant held that the findings recorded by the tribunal on merits did not warrant any interference. Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the aspect about the Tribunal having once found the appeal as not maintainable, as to how far it was justified in confirming the findings and examining the issue on merits.
FINDINGS OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF HIGH COURT
4. On challenge, the Division Bench confirmed those findings. In Para 12 of the judgment, it was held that in normal circumstances, it was open for the appellant to withdraw her resignation before it came into effect, subject to a contract to the contrary. The Division Bench then proceeded to consider the issue as to whether the Tribunal committed any error in considering the factual aspect of the matter. Th
An employee cannot withdraw his resignation after it has been accepted by the employer.
An employee's resignation is effective upon acceptance by the employer, and withdrawal must occur before acceptance; acceptance of benefits indicates cessation of employment.
A prospective resignation can be withdrawn before it becomes effective, as established by the court's interpretation of relevant legal principles.
A resignation cannot be withdrawn after its acceptance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a teacher's resignation should be made voluntarily, and if the employee withdraws such resignation, it is duly entitled to do so.
An employee's resignation can be withdrawn before acceptance even if made conditionally, as long as the relationship has not been severed.
Point of Law : The Board in exercise of power conferred under Section 33 read with Section 34 of IIIT Act with the approval of the Visitor notified the First Statute of IIIT. Statute 10 provides term....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a government servant can withdraw their resignation before its acceptance, as provided under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants R....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
