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

2023 Supreme(All) 2889

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.
Chandra Shekhar Yadav – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Writ (A) No. 13147 of 2023
Decided On : 21-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Devraj Rajvedi, Subhash Rathi
For the Respondent: Kushmondeya Shahi

A resignation is invalid if not given with the stipulated notice under applicable rules, especially when submitted under acute mental distress.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Resignation) Rules, 2000 - Rule 4 - Resignation accepted during acute mental depression - Resignation was not voluntary under immediate mental distress conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic - Resignation lacks three months' notice as required by Rule 4(1) - Court emphasizes resignation must be voluntary and not in haste - Reference to Punjab National Bank vs. P.K. Mittal, AIR 1989 SC 1083 regarding invalid acceptance of resignation without proper notice. (Paras 6, 11, 23)

(B) Validity of resignation - Resignation must adhere to stipulated notice periods unless requested deviation by the employee is made - Mental health issues at the time of resignation considered significant for validity. (Paras 20, 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, resigned amidst severe personal struggles due to COVID-19 affecting his mental health, which he contended rendered his resignation involuntary. The resignation submitted on 20.09.2021 was accepted on 20.10.2021 without following required procedural notice.

Findings of Court:
The resignation was invalid as it did not meet the requirement of three months' notice and was not voluntary due to acute mental state of the petitioner at the resignation time.

Issues: Whether the resignation was voluntary and valid given the mental state of the petitioner and procedural adherence to the Rules of 2000.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that resignation lacking required notice and voluntary nature, especially under undue mental distress related to the pandemic, is not legally sustainable.

Result: Writ petition allowed, order quashed, and reinstatement ordered.

Table of Content
1. petitioner’s resignation details and acceptance. (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding involuntariness of resignation due to mental state. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. respondent's counterarguments on resignation's validity. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
4. court’s examination of resignation rules and mental state assessment. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. conclusion to quash the resignation acceptance order. (Para 23)

JUDGMENT :

MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 and learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2.

2. Petitioner through this writ petition has assailed the order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj, whereby resignation tendered by the petitioner from service on 20.09.2021 has been accepted with effect from 20.09.2021.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School Fulatra, Block Shankargarh, District Prayagraj vide appointment order dated 27.06.2009. Petitioner pursuant to his appointment, continued to work on his post of Assistant Teacher. Petitioner while working on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School Surbal Chandpuria, Block Shankargarh, District Prayagraj submitted a letter to District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj, whereby he tendered resignation from service. Petitioner's resignation dated 20.09.2021 has been accepted by the appointing authority of the post of Assistant Teacher i.e. District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj vide order dated 20.10.2021, wherein it has been stated that petitioner's resignation is being accepted with effect from 20.09.2021.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that petitioner at the time of tendering resignation from service i.e. on 20.09.2021 was not in a fit mental condition and has tendered resignation in acute depression, therefore, the said resignation cannot be termed as voluntary resignation. It has further been contended that petitioner tendered resignation on 20.09.2021 and that was a time when entire world was facing accute difficulties arising out of COVID-19 pandemic. Since petitioner's cousins died in COVID-19 pandemic and his wife was seriously ill and further his father was ailing, as such, petitioner was under acute mental depression and therefore, he tendered resignation from service on 20.09.2021.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since petitioner was residing at Prayagraj whereas his family including his wife was residing in the village, therefore family could not know about petitioner's mental depression and also could not know that he has tendered resignation from service and resignation has been accepted by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj vide order dated it 20.10.2021. It has further been submitted that when petitioner in the summer vacation went to his village then family came to know that petitioner is under acute mental depression and has tendered resignation from service. Petitioner was taken to Nehru Hospital, B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur where it has been detected that petitioner was suffering from ‘Severe Depression Psychosis’. Wife of the petitioner thereafter submitted several representations to District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj and Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, whereby she has requested that since petitioner has tendered resignation while he was suffering with ‘Severe Depression Psychosis’, therefore the resignation was not voluntary and accordingly, the order by which resignation has been accepted may be recalled and petitioner may be reinstated in service. Petitioner has also submitted representation to the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj, whereby he has requested for recall of the order dated 20.10.2021.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited attention of

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