2008 Supreme(Raj) 2459
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
N.P.Gupta, Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, JJ.
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Dr. (Major) Hari Singh Rathore - Respondent
Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 392 of 2007.
Decided On : 15-09-2008
Subject
Employment - RESIGNATION
Headnote
(a) Constitution of India, Art. 14 and 16 – The issue dealt with the resignation. The giving details of events, facts, and circumstances by which the employee was compelled to resign, cannot be said to be conditional – If there is no provision as per the established regime that the resignation should be given to a particular authority it will not be invalid merely on the ground that it was not given to the proper authority – Unless the resignation has not been accepted by the competent authority the resigning person has a right to withdraw his resignation – The petitioner was appointed as a surgeon .He was redesignated as medical superintendent. He was not given any additional charge or payment or allowance. It was observed that it cannot be said that he was holding two different posts of surgeon and medical superintendent. His resignation from the post of medical superintendent would bring an end to his employment and so the relation of employer – employee was severed. It he did not mention in the resignation that he was willing to continue as surgeon, it will not be continued as such.
(b) Evidence Act, 1872 – S. 115 – Resignation – The doctrine of estoppel was in the issue. The plea of the employer that the employee was estopped from assailing the action of the employer in relieving him because the employee accepted some amount on account of his resignation. It was observed that this was never raised. Such a plea is a question of fact. It cannot be allowed to be pleaded at the stage of appeal.
(c) Constitution of India, Art. 14 and 16 – It was observed that for the purpose of payment of back wages, the conduct of the employee cannot be a relevant consideration. His conduct after his termination is relevant. If the employee was deliberately delaying his appearance before the court then he was not entitled for the back wages from the date of termination but only from the date when he appeared before the court. The petitioner was about to retire and there was only one post which was already filled. So the corporation was directed to reinstate the petitioner till the age of superannuation.
For the Respondent:P. S. Bhati, Advocate.