Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
PULLA KARTHIK, J.
Mothukuri Babu Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and 4 Others – Respondent
Writ Petition No.25994 of 2022
Decided on : 30-08-2024
(A) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ of Mandamus – Employment – The petitioner sought to declare the action of treating his employment as reappointment instead of continuation of service as illegal and unconstitutional – The petitioner withdrew his resignation before acceptance, and continued duties until denied – The court held that the petitioner's employment should be treated as a continuation, entitling him to all consequential benefits. (Paras 2, 10, 14)
(B) Employment Law – Resignation and Withdrawal – The court emphasized that an employee can withdraw resignation before acceptance, and the employer's actions implied acceptance of the withdrawal. (Paras 4, 12)
Facts of the case: The petitioner, after a long tenure, submitted his resignation but later sought to withdraw it before acceptance. He continued working until denied duties, leading to the dispute.
Findings of Court: The court found that the resignation was never accepted, and the petitioner should be treated as a continuing employee, entitled to benefits.
Issues: The main issues were whether the resignation was validly accepted and the implications of the withdrawal request.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner's request to withdraw his resignation was valid, and the actions of the respondents indicated acceptance of his continued service.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER :
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
a. To declare the action of the respondents in treating the petitioners employment as re appointment instead of treating the petitioners employment as continuation of his service as on dated: 30- 03-2022 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of the principles of natural justice thereby to set aside the proceedings of the 3rd respondent, bearing No. E1/692(2)/2022-RM-KMM, dated: 11-05-2022 in treating the petitioners appointment as re appointment even after application of the petitioner for withdrawal of resignation before one month and even before issuance of proceedings dated: 11-05-2022 accepting the resignation by the 3rd respondent with effect from dated: 19-04-2022;
b. To direct to return the amount deposited by the petitioner as per the orders of R-5 while forwarding the letter of resignation of the petitioner; and…”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner began working as a Tyre Mechanic in respondent No.2 Organization on 21.02.1990 and continued as such until 27.06.2012. Thereafter, he was appointed as an Assistant Depot Clerk on 28.06.2012, then promoted as a Leading Hand on 10.10.2013, and finally as Deputy Superintendent (Mechanical) on 31.03.2016. Further, due to his personal issues and work pressures, the petitioner tendered his resignation on 30.03.2022. The petitioner’s resignation letter was forwarded to respondent No.5, who directed the office to collect the petitioner’s one-monthly gross salary of Rs.45,859/- towards acceptance of resignation, and the petitioner has also deposited the same before respondent No.5 on 01.04.2022. However, despite tendering his resignation and depositing his one-month gross salary, he was asked to continue performing his duties until his resignation was accepted. As a result, he reported to duty in the month of April, 2022. Furthermore, while performing his duties at respondent No.5 Depot, the petitioner has decided to withdraw his resignation dated 30.03.2022, as he was already (58) years old and was about to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation. As such, on 22.04.2022, the petitioner sent a letter to respondent No.5 requesting permission to withdraw his resignation, and he continued attending duties till 27.04.2022. However, he was not allowed to perform his duties after that day. Subsequently, respondent No.3 issued the impugned proceedings dated 11.05.2022, reappointing the petitioner into service, afresh. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. Heard Sri B. Chinnapa Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted his resignation letter on 30.03.2022, and prior to lapse of one month period and even before its acceptance, he sent a letter to respondent No.3 on 22.04.2022 requesting to withdraw his resignation. Furthermore, in the letter dated 22.04.2022, the petitioner made no request for a re-appointment or re-employment, rather, it was merely a permission to withdraw his resignation and a request to continue him in service under the same terms and conditions as on the date of submission of his resignation letter. However, without considering the same, respondent No.3 issued the impugned proceedings dated 11.05.2022, reappointing the petitioner into service, afresh, thereby, forfeiting the petitioner’s total approximate service of (32) years. It is further submitted that even after tendering his resignation, the petitioner was asked to perform his duties and he continued serving the respondent Organization until 27.04.2022 i.e., subsequent to submitted the letter of withdrawal of resignation dated 22.04.2022, and the petitioner was also paid sala
An employee can withdraw a resignation before its acceptance, and actions implying continued service must be recognized, entitling the employee to benefits.
A resignation must be unconditional and comply with procedural requirements; failure to do so renders it invalid.
The court held that resignations cannot be accepted while disciplinary proceedings are pending, affirming the principle that withdrawal of resignation restores continuity of service.
An employee can withdraw a resignation before it becomes effective, even if accepted, as long as the employer-employee relationship persists.
The acceptance of resignation was invalid due to non-timely action by the department and discriminatory practices in handling similar cases.
An employee's resignation is effective upon acceptance by the employer, and withdrawal must occur before acceptance; acceptance of benefits indicates cessation of employment.
An employee, including a Government Servant, has the right to seek withdrawal of resignation within a reasonable time, and the duty period for all purposes should be considered.
A resignation accepted unconditionally cannot be withdrawn unilaterally, and a suit for declaration regarding continuation in service is not maintainable if the employee is not classified as a workma....
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
