Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Paras Khuttan - Appellant
Versus
Gail (india) Ltd & Anr. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4617 of 2020
Decided On : 10-02-2021
Estoppel - Resignation - GAIL Rules - Rule 8.2 - The court held that the Petitioner was required to give a three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof to enable the Respondents to process the resignation. The Petitioner's representation expressing willingness to tender one month's notice and pay in lieu of two months' notice estopped him from contesting the position. The court also found that the Petitioner was clearly estopped from contesting the position that he was not required to give a three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof and is entitled to refund of the money paid.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner joined GAIL (India) Ltd. as Manager (Law) and tendered his resignation after a short period. He requested to be relieved after one month's notice and offered to pay in lieu of the two months' notice. The Respondents accepted the resignation and the Petitioner was relieved. Subsequently, the Petitioner sought a refund of the amount paid in lieu of notice, which was rejected by the Respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioner was required to give a three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof to enable the Respondents to process the resignation. The court also held that the Petitioner's representation expressing willingness to tender one month's notice and pay in lieu of two months' notice estopped him from contesting the position. The court further found that the Petitioner was clearly estopped from contesting the position that he was not required to give a three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof and is entitled to refund of the money paid.
Issues: The issues before the court were whether the Rules governing the parties required the Petitioner to serve a three months' notice or pay in lieu of such notice to enable the Respondents to process the resignation and whether the conduct of the Petitioner in expressing his willingness to pay in lieu of two months' notice would prohibit him, in law, to seek a refund.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Petitioner was required to give a three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof to enable the Respondents to process the resignation. The court also found that the Petitioner's representation expressing willingness to tender one month's notice and pay in lieu of two months' notice estopped him from contesting the position. The court further found that the Petitioner was clearly estopped from contesting the position that he was not required to give a three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof and is entitled to refund of the money paid.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. - By way of the present writ petition, Petitioner assails the letter dated 03.07.2020, whereby representation of the Petitioner dated 27.05.2020 seeking refund of Rs. 1,74,253/- was rejected and he was informed that since the Petitioner had failed to give the required notice before tendering resignation and the money sought to be recovered was paid in lieu of the two months' notice, he was not entitled to refund of the amount. A direction is also sought to Respondent No. 1 by way of mandamus to refund the said amount to the Petitioner along with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 07.02.2020 till the date of payment.
2. The brief and relevant facts as set out in the petition are that Respondent No. 1 issued an Advertisement in October 2018 for appointment on various posts, including the post of Manager (Law) under a special recruitment drive. Petitioner being a law professional and while working in another Public Sector Undertaking, applied for the post of Manager (Law), in November 2018.
3. On 25.03.2019, the shortlisted candidates were called for interview for the post of Manager (Law) and the Petitioner successfully cleared the interview. An offer letter dated 30.07.2019 was sent to the Petitioner enclosing therewith the Terms and Conditions of the employment.
4. On 13.12.2019, Petitioner joined the services of Respondent No. 1 as Manager (Law), retaining a lien of one year on his post with the previous employer, i.e. REC Limited. Petitioner was posted at the Corporate Office, where he worked for about one month.
5. Having worked for a short span, Petitioner on 15.01.2020 submitted his resignation and requested for being relieved by 22.01.2020. As per the case set out by the Petitioner, he had categorically stated in the letter that being on probation, he was not required to serve notice and relied on the terms of the offer letter. However, instead of being relieved on acceptance of the resignation, Petitioner was informed vide e-mail dated 23.01.2020 that he was required to serve three months' notice as per the GAIL General Terms and Conditions of Service Rules (hereinafter called the GAIL Rules). Petitioner claims that he thereafter met the concerned officers to ascertain the provisions which required him to serve a three months' notice and also sent a written representation dated 27.01.2020.
6. In the representation dated 27.01.2020, Petitioner while contesting the requirement of three months' notice, represented to the Respondents that in case the Department was of the view that three months' notice was applicable, then the Petitioner would continue in service till 18.02.2020 and requested for waiver of the balance two months' period. Petitioner also expressed his willingness to pay in lieu of two months' notice in case the same was not waived.
7. Acting on the representation, Respondents vide e-mail dated 05.02.2020 informed the Petitioner that his resignation had been accepted, subject to payment of two months' pay as the request for waiver could not be accepted. Petitioner was thereafter directed to pay Rs. 1,74,253/- towards the two months' notice period, which he deposited and, on such deposit, Petitioner was relieved on 17.02.2020 from service of the Respondents.
8. After being relieved, Petitioner sent a representation on 27.05.2020 and sought for recalling the decision for payment of money in lieu of notice and requested for a refund of the amount paid. The representation was however rejected by the Respondents and the decision was communicated vide the impugned letter dated 03.07.2020.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner assailing the impugned decision of the Respondents contends that there is no Rule/Regulation or any term in the offer/appointment letter, which requires a probationer to serve three months' notice or pay salary in lieu of the notice period for acceptance of the resignation. Admittedly, the Petitioner was a probationer when he tendered his resignation and thus the Respond
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Petitioner was required to give a three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof to enable the Respondents to process the resignation. The co....
Probationers must adhere to the notice period as per company rules; payment in lieu of notice, once made, precludes contesting its necessity.
Probationers are not required to serve a notice period upon resignation, distinguishing them from regular employees, thereby entitling them to refund payments made under coercion.
An employee cannot withdraw his resignation after it has been accepted by the employer.
An employee's resignation can be withdrawn before acceptance even if made conditionally, as long as the relationship has not been severed.
A resignation tendered by an employee voluntarily, unless accepted, cannot bring an end to the employment contract, as per Clause 20 of the employment contract and Rule 36 of the Gujarat Civil Servic....
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....
The effectiveness of an employee's resignation and the validity of its withdrawal depend on compliance with the terms of resignation and the absence of pending disciplinary proceedings.
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
