IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Rai Chattopadhyay, J.
Aninda Sundar Banerjee - Petitioner
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 3349 of 2022
Decided On : 09-05-2024
Withdrawal - Employment Resignation - West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 2004 - The court interpreted that an employee retains the right to withdraw resignation until it is accepted, emphasizing that resignation becomes effective only upon acceptance by the employer.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order releasing him from service after submitting a resignation, which he later attempted to withdraw before it was accepted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the resignation was not effective until the date of release, allowing the petitioner to withdraw it prior to that date.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could withdraw his resignation after it was accepted by the authorities and the interpretation of the relevant rules regarding resignation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a resignation can be withdrawn before it becomes effective, and the relationship of employer and employee continued until the resignation was formally accepted.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the order of release is set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Rai Chattopadhyay,J.
1. The writ petitioner has challenged an order of the Block Development Officer and Executive Officer, Bankura – 1, Development Block/respondent no. 7 dated April 18, 2018 by dint of which the petitioner has been released from the service of a Nirman Sahayak in Kenjakura Gram Panchayat with effect from the said date i.e., April 18, 2018.
2. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Mr. Soumen Dutta, learned counsel is appearing for the writ petitioner. He has mentioned about some relevant dates and corresponding documents. He submits that the writ petitioner has joined in service on May 31, 2011. He submitted his resignation letter on January 16, 2018. An order of the respondent authority/District Magistrate, Bankura dated February 7, 2018, has informed about acceptance of his resignation as above, “with effect from the date of release”. Subsequently, on February 9, 2018, the petitioner submitted a letter to withdraw his resignation, as was tendered earlier. Thereafter on April 18, 2018, a further order was issued by the respondent/Block Development Officer, directing writ petitioner’s release with effect from forenoon of April 18, 2018.
4. The petitioner has stated that during this period that is from the date of his submission of resignation letter on January 16, 2018, till the time he has been released by dint of the order dated April 18, 2018, the respondent authorities have allowed him the salary and other applicable dues.
5. Therefore, according to Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the respondent authority should have followed the law settled in this regard and allowed/accepted the letter of the writ petitioner to withdraw his resignation at a point of time when the jural relationship between the writ petitioner and the respondent authority subsisted.
6. In support of his submissions, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has relied on several judgments. The law as settled by those, principally is that before acceptance of resignation by the authority and before the jural relationship of employer and employee ceases between the parties, the employee shall always have a lawful right to withdraw the resignation, tendered by him earlier.
7. Let the relevant portion of the said judicial pronouncements be quoted as hereinbelow for the benefit of discussions in this case:-
“8. The result of the above interpretation is that the employee continued to be in service till April 21, 1986 or June 30, 1986, on which date his services would have come normally to an and in terms of his letter dated January 21, 1986. But, by that time, he had exercised his right to withdraw the resignation. Since the withdrawal letter was written before the resignation became effective, the resignation stands withdrawn, with the result that the respondent continues to be in the service of the bank. It is true that there is no specific provision in the regulations permitting the employee to withdraw the resignation. It is, however, not necessary that there should be any such specific rule. Until the resignation becomes effective on the terms of the letter read with Regulation 20, it is open to the employee, on general principles, to withdraw his letter of resignation. That is why, in some cases of public services, this right of withdrawal is also made subject ot the permission of the employer. There is no such clause here. It is not necessary to labour this point further as it is well-settled by the earlier decisions of this Court in Raj Kumar v. Union of India, Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra and Balram Gupta vs. Union of India”.
b. Union of India vs. Gopal Chandra Misra & Others reported in (1978) 2 Supreme Court Cases 301:-
“50. It will bear repetition that the general principle is that in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a ‘prospective’ resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becom
J.N. Srivastava vs. Union of India & Another (1998) 9 SCC 559
Shambhu Murari Sinha vs. Project & Development India Ltd. & Another (2002) 3 SCC 437
Srikantha S.M. vs. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd. (2005) 8 SCC 314
Union of India vs. Gopal Chandra Misra & Others (1978) 2 SCC 301
An employee can withdraw a resignation before it becomes effective, even if accepted, as long as the employer-employee relationship persists.
A resignation cannot be withdrawn after its acceptance.
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.
An employee has the right to withdraw the resignation before it becomes effective, and the employer's action of informing the employee that the resignation has been accepted and the employee stands r....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.