Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Narayan Shankar Upadhyaya, S/o. Shri Madan Mohan Upadhyaya - Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8228 of 2009
Decided On : 23-02-2023
WITHDRAWAL OF RESIGNATION - EMPLOYEE - ESTOPPEL - RESIGNATION ACCEPTED - NO LOCUS POENITENTIAE - NO RIGHT TO WITHDRAW RESIGNATION - NO RIGHT TO CLAIM PENSIONARY BENEFITS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an employee of the respondent, submitted a notice seeking voluntary retirement (VRS) on 1.8.2008, but it was rejected on 5.11.2008, due to shortage of manpower. He then submitted another application for VRS on 10.12.2008, which was not acted upon. On 13.4.2009, he tendered his resignation with a request to accept it with effect from 16.5.2009. The respondent accepted the resignation on 14.5.2009, and the order was communicated to the petitioner. After receiving the order, the petitioner submitted an application on 25.5.2009, requesting that his resignation be treated as a mistake and that he be reinstated. The respondent did not reinstate him, so he filed a writ petition challenging the orders dated 5.11.2008 and 14.5.2009 and seeking various reliefs, including a direction to treat his resignation as VRS and grant him all consequential benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner could not withdraw his resignation after it was accepted by the respondent. The court noted that the petitioner had tendered his resignation voluntarily and unconditionally, and that the respondent had accepted it in accordance with the relevant regulations. The court further held that the petitioner was estopped from challenging his own action by seeking to withdraw his resignation. The court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to claim pensionary benefits because his resignation had resulted in the forfeiture of his service.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner can withdraw his resignation after its acceptance? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim pensionary benefits after his resignation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An employee cannot withdraw his resignation after it has been accepted by the employer. 2. A resignation, once accepted, results in the forfeiture of the employee's service, and the employee is not entitled to claim pensionary benefits.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The issue involved in this petition is that “whether the petitioner can withdraw his resignation after its acceptance?”
2. Facts of the case as per the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as Overseer (Electrical) and he joined the said post on 22.09.1975 as a pre-service trainee. Thereafter he was appointed as Junior Engineer/Overseer and on 29.9.2003 he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (E&M).
3. The petitioner submitted a notice dated 1.8.2008 under Regulation 18(3) of the RSEB Employees Service Regulations, 1964 (for short “Regulations 1964”) seeking voluntary retirement (for short “VRS”) with effect from (for short ”w.e.f.”) 15.11.2008, but the said application was rejected by the respondent vide order dated 5.11.2008, on account of shortage of manpower. After that, again a similar application was submitted for seeking VRS on 10.12.2008 stating therein that his 80 years old father is suffering from Prostate and wife is suffering from Arthritis (pain in joints) and due to his busy schedule of duties, he is not in a position to take care of his family, due to which he remains under depression. But no order was passed on this second application, hence he sent reminder on 29.1.2009 but no orders were passed on these applications.
4. The petitioner tendered his resignation on 13.4.2009 before the respondent with request to accept his resignation w.e.f. 16.5.2009.
5. In terms of Regulation 16 of the Regulations 1964, the respondent accepted the resignation of the petitioner vide order dated 14.5.2009 w.e.f. 16.5.2009 and the order dated 14.5.2009 was communicated to the petitioner. After receipt of the order dated 14.5.2009, the petitioner submitted an application on 25.5.2009 to the respondent that a mistake has been committed by him, so the petitioner be reinstated back in service. When the petitioner was not reinstated back in service, the petitioner submitted this petition before this court with the following prayer :-
(i) quash the orders dated 5.11.2008 and 14.5.2009 and treat the petitioner to be deemed to have retired voluntarily from service and be given all consequential benefits from the said date alongwith interest thereto;
(ii) further quash the order dated 5.11.2008 and hold that the respondent could not have rejected the application of voluntary retirement on the ground mentioned therein;
(iii) any other order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of humble petitioner;”
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner rendered thirty-three and a half years in service and contributed amount in his pension fund. Counsel submits that on account of family circumstances, it was not possible for the petitioner to continue with the service that is why he submitted the application seeking voluntary retirement, but the same was rejected by the respondent on the ground of shortage of staff. Counsel submits that when the petitioner tendered resignation for the same family reasons, his resignation was accepted by the respondent vide impugned order dated 14.5.2009. Counsel submits that such action of the respondent smells mala fide on their part because once application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was denied on the ground of shortage of staff, then there was no occasion available with the respondent to accept his resignation because staff was short at that point of time also. Counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be deprived to get pensionary and other service benefits because the petitioner has rendered thirty-three and a half years service with the department and his equal amount of contribution was deducted from his salary. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on the following judgments :-
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.
A resignation cannot be withdrawn after its acceptance.
An employee can withdraw a resignation before it becomes effective, even if accepted, as long as the employer-employee relationship persists.
An employee's request for voluntary retirement can be withdrawn before it takes effect, and the intention behind the request must be considered in determining its nature.
An employee can withdraw a voluntary retirement application before the effective date of retirement, as affirmed by the Court, ensuring that rights under Article 21 are protected; engaging in post-re....
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 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
