Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4614
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.Y. EQBAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMARAO
The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department & Another
Versus
Dr. N. Udayakumar
Writ Appeal No.2060 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010
Decided on : 26-10-2010
For the Petitioners: G. Sankaran, Spl.G.P. (Edn.).
For the Respondent:P.K. Rajagopal, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the government's power to reject a resignation is limited and should be exercised considering the nature and gravity of the case, especially for personnel in scarce categories of services.
Headnote:
resignation - government servant - Rule 41-A - [41-A: Acceptance of resignation: (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)] - The court discussed Rule 41-A of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, which governs the acceptance of resignation by a government servant. The court highlighted the conditions under which the resignation can be rejected by the government, emphasizing the limitations and exceptions provided in the rule. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the nature and gravity of the case before rejecting a resignation, especially for personnel in scarce categories of services.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Specialist in Paediatrics, submitted a resignation due to family problems. The government rejected the resignation citing dearth of hands. The respondent filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the single Judge, leading to this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the government's rejection of the resignation was unjustified and emphasized the need to consider the nature and gravity of the case before rejecting a resignation, especially for personnel in scarce categories of services.
Issues: The main issue was the government's power to reject the resignation of a government servant, particularly in the context of scarce categories of services.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the government's power to reject a resignation is limited and should be exercised considering the nature and gravity of the case, especially for personnel in scarce categories of services.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, and the government was directed to accept the resignation of the respondent within six weeks.
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE & ELIPE DHARMARAO, J.
1. Theoption of the Government servant to resign his services and the power of the Government to either accept or reject the same, is the subject matter in this writ appeal.
2. The respondent is a Specialist in Paediatrics and now serving as Tutor/Assistant Professor of Paediatrics in the Institute of Child Health, Chennai. Having entered into service in the year 1994, as of now he has completed 16 years of service. According to the respondent, due to persistent family problems, he decided to resign his job and accordingly, he submitted an application on 24. 2008 through proper channel, but since he did not give advance notice of three months expressly, he was required to file a fresh set of papers for the purpose of his resignation and accordingly, he made a fresh resignation application along with all necessary enclosures as per rules on 17. 2008 to the authorities through proper channel. Along with the set of papers he filed, he submitted a certificate of non-contractual obligation, an undertaking that he will not request for appointment or reposting, forms of declaration that no disciplinary action was pending against him along with other forms expressly required for the purpose. According to the respondent, though his resignation should have been accepted as a matter of course, the first appellant herein, by the order dated 10. 2008, refused to accept the resignation on the ground of dearth of hands. Aggrieved, the respondent herein has filed W.P.No.26234 of 2008 before this Court and since the learned single Judge has allowed the said writ petition, the respondents therein have come forward to prefer this appeal.
3. Thelearned Special Government Pleader (Education), appearing for the appellants would argue that the respondent is a M.D. in Paediatrics, which is a scarce category of service and considering this aspect and also considering the fact that there is dearth of hands, the Government has rejected the application of the respondent. The learned Special Government Pleader would further argue that the Government is well within its powers to reject the resignation application of an employee as has been provided for under Rule 41-A(c) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the order under challenge passed by the learned single Judge runs counter to the power of the Government under Rule 41-A(c) of the Rules. In support of his arguments, the learned Special Government Pleader would rely on the following two judgments delivered by two learned single Judges of this Court separately:
1. Dr.P.SURESHKUMAR vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [W.P.No.726 of 2010, dated 6. 2010] [MANU/TN/0707/2010]
2. An unreported judgment in Dr.K.MEENA vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [W.P.No.1591 of 2009, dated 18. 2010].
We will deal with these judgments in due course.
4. On the contrary, on the part of the respondent, the learned counsel would submit that there is no contractual obligation of any kind on the part of the respondent. He would further argue that earlier the respondent submitted his application for resignation on 24. 2008, which was rejected by the Government on 15. 2008 on the ground that no three months notice was given and in the said rejection order, the Government has not mentioned the so-called reason of dearth of hands. The learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that the judgments relied on by the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the appellants, have no application to the case on hand. The learned counsel for the respondent would further contend that since the case of the respondent is not falling within the categories mentioned in Rule 41-A(d) of the Rules, the Government is not justified in rejecting the claim of the respondent. On
