Back
2009 Supreme(Ori) 538
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
B.S. Chauhan, B.N. Mahapatra, JJ.
JAYA KRISHNA SABAT - APPELLANT
Versus
DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Decided On : 05-02-2009
An employee has the right to withdraw a resignation prior to its effective date, especially if it is a prospective resignation. The employer cannot prepone the date of effectiveness of resignation.
Headnote:
Resignation - Withdrawal of Resignation - Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Fundamental Rules - The judgment discusses the legal framework surrounding the resignation and withdrawal of resignation by an employee. It references various cases and legal principles to establish that an employee has the right to withdraw a resignation prior to its effective date, especially if it is a prospective resignation. The court emphasizes the importance of the employee's intention and the acceptance process of the resignation, and highlights that the employer cannot prepone the date of effectiveness of resignation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Head Clerk, submitted a resignation letter with a stipulation for its effective date. The appointing authority accepted the resignation with a different effective date. The petitioner filed an application for withdrawal of resignation prior to the original effective date.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had the right to withdraw the resignation prior to its effective date, and therefore, allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order rejecting the withdrawal of resignation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had the right to withdraw the resignation after its acceptance with a different effective date.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various legal principles and precedents to establish that an employee has the right to withdraw a resignation prior to its effective date, especially if it is a prospective resignation. The court emphasized the importance of the employee's intention and the acceptance process of the resignation, and highlighted that the employer cannot prepone the date of effectiveness of resignation.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order rejecting the withdrawal of resignation was quashed.
JUDGMENT :
B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This Writ Petition has been fled for quashing the Order Dated 15.1.2007 (Annexure, - 4) by which the application for withdrawal of resignation of the Petitioner has been rejected by the District Judge, Kandamal.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Petitioner while working as Head Clerk under the administrative control of the District Judge, Kandamal submitted resignation letter dated 27.11.2006 (Annexure -1) requesting the appointing authority to accept it with immediate effect. The appointing authority accepted the resignation vide Order Dated 2.12.2006 with a stipulation that the Petitioner would retire with effect from 28.2.2007. Petitioner submitted an application dated 22.12.2006 (Annexure - 3) withdrawing the said resignation as the same was to become effective from 28.2.2007. However, the said application has been rejected vide Order Dated 15.1.2007. Hence this Writ Petition.
3. Mr. Mohanty, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as the resignation of the Petitioner was to be effective from 28.2.2007 and the Petitioner had moved an application dated 22.12.2006 for withdrawal, the application for withdrawal of the resignation has wrongly been rejected vide Order Dated 15.1.2007. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be quashed.
4. On the contrary Mr. P.K. Khuntia, Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the resignation was tendered to become effective with immediate effect on 27.11.2006. Therefore, the Petitioner did not have any right to withdraw the same after acceptance vide Order Dated 2.12.2006. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. We have heard the matter at length on 30.1.2009. Though the lawyers for the parties are not present, we have considered the rival submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties earlier and perused the record.
6. In Jai Ram Vs. Union of India (UOI) the Apex Court considered the case of self-seeking retirement of an employee under the Fundamental Rules and held as under:
It may be conceded that it is open to a servant, who has expressed a desire to retire from service and applied to his superior officer, to give him the requisite permission to change his mind subsequently and ask for cancellation of the permission thus obtained; but he can be allowed to do so as long as he continues in service and not after he has been terminated.
7. In Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India (UOI) the Apex Court considered the case of resignation tendered by a member of Indian Administrative Service on 21-8-64. His case for acceptance of resignation was recommended by the State Government and the Government of India accepted his resignation vide Order Dated 31-12-64 but asked the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan "to intimate the date on which the (employee) was relieved of his duties so that a formal notification can be issued in that behalf." The officer filed an application on 27-11-64 to withdraw his resignation. However, vide Order Dated 29-3-65, he was directed to be relieved. When he approached the Court for quashing the Order Dated 29-3-65 and also the Order Dated 31-10-64, the Court rejected his case holding that till the resignation was accepted by the Authority in consonance with the Rules governing the acceptance, the public servant concerned has locus poenitentiae but not thereafter. The resignation became effective on the date of its acceptance by the Government of India and a subsequent withdrawal of the resignation was ineffective even if acceptance of the resignation was not intimated to him. The Court held as under:
The letters written by the Appellant on 21-8-64 and 30-8-64 did not indicate that the resignation was not to become effective until acceptance thereof was intimated to the Appellant. The Appellant informed the Authorities of the State of Rajasthan that his resignation may be forwarded for early acceptance. On the plain terms of the letters, the resignation was
