Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.
Dattatraya Irranna Kurle - Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra State Electrical Board and Ors. – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 533 Of 2000 With Civil Application No. 6741 Of 2000 In Second Appeal No. 533 Of 2000
Decided On : 25-07-2024
Resignation - Employment - General Clauses Act - Section 27 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding the acceptance and withdrawal of resignation, emphasizing that a resignation is effective only upon acceptance by the competent authority, and that the presumption of service applies when a letter is sent via registered post.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant resigned from his position but later attempted to withdraw the resignation before it was accepted. The employer accepted the resignation and the appellant contested the legality of this acceptance, claiming he had withdrawn his resignation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the resignation was duly accepted and communicated to the appellant before he attempted to withdraw it. The appellant's acceptance of terminal benefits further indicated he had ceased to be in service.
Issues: Whether the resignation was effectively withdrawn before acceptance by the employer and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the resignation was accepted before the withdrawal was communicated, and the appellant's acceptance of benefits constituted a waiver of his right to challenge the resignation.
Result: The appeal is dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT :
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.
1. On 15th November 2000 this appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-
ii) In view of paragraph 7 of the written statement, in which it has been admitted that the Appellant had given an application dated 24th March, 1997 withdrawing his resignation, is it correct and proper to hold that the application withdrawing the resignation has not been proved or established ?
2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows.
3. The appellant had filed a suit for declaration that an order dated 31st March 1987 relieving him from the services by accepting his resignation and refusing to reinstate him in the service, is illegal. The suit has been dismissed by 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur on 29th September 1994 being Regular Civil Suit No. 399 of 1991.
4. An appeal preferred by the appellant before the District Judge, Solapur being Civil Appeal No. 83 of 1995 also came to be dismissed on 22nd September 1999 and, therefore, the appellant approached this Court by way of Second Appeal.
5. A suit has been filed by the appellant against the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (For short “Board”) as well as Superintendent Engineer (SURC) and Executive Engineer (Urban). The appellant was appointed as a Steno Typist in the Board, who had joined the services at Vita, Dist. Sangli on 31st January 1980.
6. Subsequently, he was transferred to the Board’s office at Pandharpur. On 6th March 1982, he was transferred to Circle Office at Solapur, where he worked till 31st December 1986. According to the appellant, he served the Board with integrity and honesty. His work was also satisfactory.
7. Prior to 31st December 1986, due to some family issues, appellant was frustrated. His first marriage was dissolved. He performed second marriage but his second wife had committed suicide. In 1984, he performed third marriage but there were differences and his image in the society was lowered down.
8. Due to aforesaid reasons, his mental condition was not proper and, therefore, he tendered his resignation on 31st December 1986 and in lieu of one month’s notice, he had deposited a months salary at Rs.1601.70 under Receipt No.112242 dated 31st December 1986. The said amount was deposited in the office of the respondent no.3. According to the appellant, respondent no.3 was not a competent authority to accept resignation but it was respondent no.2, as per the Employees’ Service Regulations. The respondent no.3, therefore, forwarded his resignation to the respondent no.2. It is his contention that resignation had been tendered by him due to grave and sudden provocation.
9. After tendering the resignation, the appellant was attending the office of the respondent no.3 since he was not relieved from the service as the resignation was not accepted.
10. The respondent no.3 by an order dated 10th March 1987 informed the appellant that his resignation will not be accepted until he deposits an amount of Rs.630/- towards the dues outstanding against him. It is the contention of the appellant that till 10th March 1987 his resignation was not accepted by the respondent no.3.
11. Subsequently, by his communication dated 24th March 1987, the appellant informed respondent no.2 that he has withdrawn his resignation. The said communication was addressed to the respondent no.2 and was submitted through respondent no.3. It is the contention of the appellant that despite said communication, he was not allowed to resume duties by allowing him to withdraw the resignation. No action had been taken on his letter of withdrawal of resignation. The respondent no.2 by its communication dated 31st March 1987 accepted the resignation of the appellant w.e.f. 31st December 1986. Thus, the contention of the appellant that the act o
An employee's resignation is effective upon acceptance by the employer, and withdrawal must occur before acceptance; acceptance of benefits indicates cessation of employment.
An employee can withdraw a resignation before it becomes effective, even if accepted, as long as the employer-employee relationship persists.
Resignation can be withdrawn before its acceptance.
Resignation – Withdrawal of such resignation by employee prior to effective date is permissible.
A resignation accepted unconditionally cannot be withdrawn unilaterally, and a suit for declaration regarding continuation in service is not maintainable if the employee is not classified as a workma....
A prospective resignation can be withdrawn before it becomes effective, as established by the court's interpretation of relevant legal principles.
Voluntary Retirement – Once acceptance takes place, contract stands concluded – Right of a person whose resignation has been accepted is to receive benefit of provident fund amount as one of terminal....
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....
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
