Back
2000 Supreme(SC) 408
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.R.Babu : S.Saghir Ahmad
Rajasthan State Electricity Board
Versus
Brij Mohan Parihar
Case No. : 1552 of 2000
Date of Decision : 2/21/00
Resignation is effective from the date specified by the employee if their subsequent conduct, such as prolonged absence and demands for retirement benefits, demonstrates an intent to be treaty as resigned, notwithstanding the absence of an immediate formal acceptance letter.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Resignation - Effectiveness of resignation - Employee specifies effective date of resignation in the letter - Subsequent conduct, including absence from duty for several years and demanding post-retirement benefits, indicates that the employee treated himself as having resigned from the specified date - Absence of a formal acceptance letter does not negate the effect of the resignation when the conduct of the employee is consistent with the resignation. (Paras 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
An employee tendered resignation stating it would be effective from a specific date. The employee remained absent from duty for four years and subsequently reported to resume duties. The lower courts held that since a formal acceptance letter was not issued immediately, the employee should be deemed to have continued in service until the date he reported back to resume duties.
Findings of Court:
The conduct of the employee in absenting himself for four years and subsequently claiming gratuity and other post-retirement benefits is sufficient to indicate that he treated himself as having resigned from the post with effect from the date specified in his resignation letter.
Issues: Whether an employee is deemed to have continued in service until the date he reports back to duty if a formal letter accepting the resignation was not issued promptly, especially when the employee specified an effective date and remained absent for several years.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an employee clearly specifies the effective date of resignation and subsequently acts in a manner consistent with that resignation—such as prolonged absence and claiming retirement benefits—the resignation is effective from the stated date, and the lack of a formal acceptance letter does not extend the period of deemed service.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
service law
- resignation
- retirement benefits
-
service law
S.RAJENDRA BABU, J.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3) THE respondent was an employee of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. He submitted his letter of resignation on 10/10/1983 in which it was mentioned that the resignation will be effective from 25/11/1983. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench, both have recorded a finding that the respondent offered himself for duty on 22/8/1987 through his letter of even date. It was then that the Board made an order dated 24/8/1987 accepting the letter of resignation with effect from 25/11/1983 and treating the respondent as relieved from the forenoon of 25/11/1983. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have further held that a formal letter accepting the resignation should have been issued and since it was not done, the. respondent shall be deemed to have continued in service till 22/8/1987 when he reported to resume his duties.
(4) WE are not inclined to subscribe to this view. The respondent tendered his resignation vide his letter dated 10/8/1983 in which it was mentioned clearly that the resignation would be effective from 25/11/1983. He absented himself from duty for four years. from that date and reported only on 22/8/1987. This conduct itself on the part of the respondent is sufficient to indicate that he treated himself to have resigned from the post which he was holding, with effect from 25/11/1983, particularly when he himself thereafter demanded payment of gratuity and other post-retirement benefits.
(5) HAVING regard to the circumstances of the case, the finding could not have been recorded by the learned single Judge or the Division Bench that the respondent shall be deemed to be continuing in service till 22/11/1987.
(6) THAT being so, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgments passed by the single Judge and the Division Bench. In the particular circumstances of the case, the respondent shall be treated to have resigned from the post in 1 question with effect from 25/11/1983. All retirement benefits as admissible under the rules shall be paid to him by the appellant Board possibly within three months.
(7) THERE will be no order as to costs.
