Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CHENNAKESAVA REDDY, GOPALRAO EKBOLE
D.Sundara Rao - Appellant
Versus
Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam - Respondent
Decided On : 07-12-73
RESIGNATION - WITHDRAWAL - EFFECTIVITY - Resignation to take effect from a future date - Acceptance of resignation - Subsequent withdrawal before the effective date - Validity of withdrawal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, submitted a resignation letter with a three-month notice period. The Port Trust authorities accepted the resignation, which was to take effect from a future date. However, the petitioner later withdrew his resignation before the effective date.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the resignation was not effective until the stipulated period had expired and that the petitioner had the right to withdraw his offer of resignation before it became irrevocable. The court further held that the subsequent acceptance of the resignation by the Port Trust authorities was legally ineffective.
Issues: 1. Whether the resignation became effective upon acceptance, even though it was to take effect from a future date. 2. Whether the petitioner had the right to withdraw his resignation before the effective date.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A resignation is an offer to terminate a contract of service, which becomes effective when it is communicated to the offeree. 2. Acceptance of the resignation is not complete unless and until it is communicated to the offerer. 3. A conditional offer of resignation, which is to take effect only after a stipulated period, becomes binding on the parties only when the stipulated period has expired. 4. Until the stipulated period has expired, the original contract of service continues in operation and cannot be said to have been terminated. 5. The relationship of master and servant continues until the new contract of resignation takes effect, and the employee has the right to withdraw the offer of resignation before it becomes irrevocable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner's resignation was validly withdrawn and that the Port Trust authorities' rejection of the withdrawal was legally ineffective.
( 2 ) THE port Trust authorities accepted the same by their letter dated -41-1970 which reads as follows : " The Chirman has accepted your resignation for the post of Assistant Secretary (Class I) at this port Trust with effect from 2-7-70 A. M. " the petitioner, however, on a second thought, withdrew his resignation in the following manner under a telegram dated 9-4-1970. "schedule caste officer D. Sunder Kao, Assistant Secretary, port Visakbapatnam, harassed, victimised, compelled resign job, pray enquily, report follows".
( 3 ) ON the same date i. e. , on 9-4-1970, he issued a letter confirming the contents of the telegram. Subsequently on 18-4-1970 the petitioner sent the following letter : "i have resigned in haste. 1 therefore hereby withdrew my resignation, i would request that my letter of resignation forwarded on 3-4-1970 may kindly be treated as conceited. " the petitioner repsated his withdrawal by another letter dated 25-4-1970 requesting the authorities to treat his resignation letter as withdrawn which according to him was sent in haste. The Port Trust authorities, however, rejected the request of the petitioner by their letter dated 8-6-1970 which runs : "as your resignation has already been accepted it is regretted that your request cannot be granted. "
( 4 ) THE petitioner his asked for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Chairman, Port Trust, dated 8-6-1970 and for a direction to pay the arrears of salary.
( 5 ) THE learned single Judge held that under Regulation 205 of the central Civil Service Regulations, the resignation was accepted with effect from 2-7-1970. Since the employee fixed the date from which the resignation was to come into effect, it was no longer open to the petitioner to withdraw his resignation as it had already become effective under Regulation 205. Conssquently the writ petition was dismissed. The principal question for consideration in this writ appeal was whether the resignation had become effective because of its acceptance although it was to take effect from a future date and consequently the withdrawal of the resignation much prior to the date when the resignation was to be effective was of no legal consequence.
( 6 ) IT was realised in this court that Regulation 205 although refers to resignation, does not enact anything regarding resignation. Clause (a) of the Regulation merely enjoins that an officer, who resigns the public service and is re-employed after an interval, cannot without the permission of the concerned authority count bis former service towards leave. Clause (b) has nothing to do with the persons who resign but is concerned with an officer who is dismissed or removed from service but was reinstated on appeal.
( 7 ) IT will thus be plain that Regulation 205 has nothing to do with the question as to when the resignation becomes effective after which it cannot be withdrawn. Below the said regulation and under the beading of "government of India s decision" some instructions appear to have been given by the Central Government to the concerned officers as to how they should deal with the resignations. We do not propose to read those instructions here because it was a common ground that these instructions of administrative character and have no legal force whatsoever- in Raj Kumar v. Union
AI
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
