SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Bijender Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 1835 of 2021 & CM Appl. 5273 of 2021
Decided On : 05-07-2021




A resignation can be withdrawn only before its acceptance; acceptance is effective once communicated, impacting reinstatement rights.

Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 - Rule 5 - Writ petition challenging order by Central Administrative Tribunal about resignation acceptance - Petitioner argued that resignation inappropriately considered and sought reinstatement - Court held resignation effective upon acceptance; therefore, withdrawal post-acceptance not permissible. (Paras 8, 9)

(B) Employment Law - The court emphasized that a sensitive and specialized organization must not retain unwilling employees. (Para 9)

Table of Content
1. challenge against cat order regarding resignation. (Para 2)
2. arguments on withdrawal of resignation. (Para 3 , 4)
3. details on appointment and resignation communication. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. court's view on resignation acceptance. (Para 8)
5. dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14th May, 2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA No. 1503/2019. Petitioner also challenges the letter dated 17th January, 2019, 27th November, 2019 and 01st November, 2017 and prays for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Scientist `E' with all consequential benefits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the CAT failed to consider that the petitioner had neither resigned nor intended to resign from his post in Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and the same is evident from the alleged resignation letter dated 10th August, 2017. He emphasizes that the petitioner by way of the said letter had only sought a transfer to a family station as his wife was unwell.

4. He also submits that the CAT erred in holding that the petitioner could not withdraw his alleged resignation inasmuch as Rule 26(4) of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules 1965, permits a government servant to withdraw his resignation prior to its acceptance.

5. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the petitioner was appointed as Scientist `E' in DRDO, on ad hoc basis, on 09th August, 2016 at an establishment in Gaya, Bihar. He sought extensions to join and finally joined on 10th April, 2017 only i.e. after a gap of nearly eight months. Even after the delayed joining, the petitioner remained absent on various dates on the grounds ranging from his illness to his wife and parents illness as well as due to a new born baby.

6. The petitioner vide letter dated 10th August, 2017 requested the respondents to either transfer him or to accept his resignation. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner remained absent from service after submitting the letter dated 10th August, 2017. The said letter is reproduced hereinbelow:

"Subject: Request for Transfer/Notice of Termination of Service to the Post of Scientist E in DRDO issued to appointing authority (DOP,DRDO) under Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

Kind Attn: Director-SPIC &Joint Director-Admin

1. Reference to your letter DOP/05/56069/115109 dated 30 Aug 2016, 17 Jan 2017 and 22 Mar 2017 regarding appointment to the Post of Scientist `E' in DRDO.

2. The Extension of adhoc appointment upto 31st Dec 2017 was approved and intimated vide letter no. DOP/05/56069/115109 Dated 30Jun 2017.

3. Sir Due to my personal family requirements (to take care of my old parents and my wife and new born daughter) my presence is required in Delhi. Earlier I manage things by visiting my home from gaya on weekly or 15 days basis. Sometimes taking helps from relatives. But now it will not possible for me to visit every week due to that far location of site or asking people to support.

4. I request you kindly transfer me in Delhi or nearby Delhi state anywhere in Haryana, Chandigarh, Rajasthan, Uttaranchal if any site is there. If it is not possible in SPIC then kindly consider to give me a transfer in some another DRDO. I need this transfer because Indeed initial 2 years to settle things on family side.

5. In case it is not possible as mentioned in point 4, In terms of Para 3 of reference letters (1) above and in pursuance of sub rule of rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) rules, 1965, I hereby, give notice to the termination of appointment with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date of this letter.

6. Hence the undersigned may be released of all duties w.e.f 10th September 2017."

(emphasis supplied)

7.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top