Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.
Nirmala Sahu (Samanta) – Appellants
Versus
Nandigram Braja Mohan Girls’ High School & Ors. – Respondents
S.A. 104 of 2008
Decided on : 14-05-2024
Resignation - Employment - Specific Relief Act - Sections 34 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding resignation and withdrawal, emphasizing that a prospective resignation can be withdrawn before it becomes effective, influencing the decision to favor the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Headmistress, resigned but later attempted to withdraw her resignation before it was effective. The school accepted her resignation but the appellant argued it was not valid due to her withdrawal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the resignation was accepted with a future effective date, and since the withdrawal was communicated before that date, the resignation was deemed not effective.
Issues: Whether the appellant could withdraw her resignation after it was accepted but before it became effective.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a resignation can be withdrawn before it becomes effective, and since the withdrawal was communicated before the effective date, the resignation was not valid.
Result: The judgment and decree of the lower courts were set aside, and the suit was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed in T.A. No.57 of 2006/02 of 2007 dated 29th September, 2007 passed by second court of Additional District Judge, Tamluk, present second Appeal has been preferred. By the order impugned learned court below affirmed the judgment dated 31.07.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2nd Court Tamluk in T.S. No. 38 of 2006.
2. Respondent/plaintiff/Nandigram Braja Mohan Girls High School and others (hereinafter called as school authority) instituted aforesaid T.S. No.38 of 1987 against the present Appellant. In the said suit present respondent as plaintiff contended that defendant no.1/appellant herein was appointed as Headmistress of plaintiffs/school on 11.07.1984. Said Headmistress/defendant no.1 tendered her resignation from that post on 16th December, 1996 with a request to release her on a particular date. On 7th February, 1987 the then secretary of the school issued a notice calling a meeting of the managing committee for consideration of the aforesaid letter of resignation. The meeting of the managing committee was held on 15th February, 1987 and unanimous resolution was taken to accept the letter of resignation. Plaintiff alleged that appellant/Headmistress attended school on 16.02.1987 and the then secretary by a letter tried to intimate the decision of managing committee with request to hand over the charge to defendant No.2 on 20.02.1987, but she refused to accept the said letter and left the school. However, the secretary further intimated the acceptance of the resignation tendered by her by registered post on 17th February, 1987 but neither registered envelop nor the A/D card came back to the authority though the letter was allegedly correctly addressed. It is further case of the respondent/plaintiff that after knowing the decision of acceptance of the resignation of the appellant by the managing committee, the appellant tried to withdraw the resignation letter by sending a letter of withdrawal, which the school authority received by post on 16.02.1987 wherein the secretary was also requested not to give effect to the resignation letter. Thereafter appellant/headmistress allegedly tried to forcibly enter the school premises on 27.02.1987 and thereafter tried to create deadlock situation in the school and inspite of repeated request she refused to make over charge which the school authority informed the District Inspector of Schools. Plaintiff claimed that after submission of resignation and acceptance of the same by the managing committee, it is to be declared that defendant no.1 is no longer the Headmistress of the plaintiff/school and also sought for injunction to that effect.
3. Appellant herein/Defendant no.1 contested the suit by filing written statement contending that getting frustrated with the misdeeds of the managing committee and most of the members/staff of that school, she tendered her resignation on 16.12.1996 with a request to accept her resignation and to release her on 15.01.1987. It is submitted by the Appellant/Headmistress that the resignation letter had not been accepted by the authority till 13.02.1987. On 14.02.1987 she was pressurised by some of the guardian members and as also ‘gheraod’ by the local people and finding no other alternative, she wrote a letter withdrawing the resignation, which was received by the school authority on 16.02.1987. She further contended that in pursuance of the withdrawal letter of resignation, the secretary of the school by his Memo No. 17/87 dated 18.02.1987, informed her about the non-acceptance of resignation letter. Thereafter the secretary also informed the Appellant that her salary for the month December, 1986 to January, 1987 would be disbursed within February, 1987 and she was requested to continue her duty as Headmistress of the school as usual. Defendant no. 1’s further case is that suppressing material fact, plaintiff filed aforesaid sui
A prospective resignation can be withdrawn before it becomes effective, as established by the court's interpretation of relevant legal principles.
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.
A resignation cannot be withdrawn after its acceptance.
A resignation can be withdrawn before acceptance by the authority concerned, and in the absence of statutory provisions, the decision to accept a resignation should be justifiable.
Non-communication of acceptance of resignation does not invalidate the resignation, and the resignation becomes effective on its acceptance, even if the acceptance is not communicated, as long as the....
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 resignation tendered and accepted under Rule 114A of the Delhi School Education Rules is deemed effective if not opposed within 30 days by the Director of Education, even if coercion is later claim....
Resignation – As per Service Jurisprudence, employment is terminated from the date on which letter of resignation is accepted by appropriate authority – Resignation would be effective on its acceptan....
A resignation is ineffective if not tendered in person to the appropriate authority and processed according to specific statutory requirements.
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
