Resignation withdrawn before delayed acceptance. Supreme Court directed for reinstatement of employee.

Judgment dated 13th September 2024

Cause title : S.D. MANOHARA VS KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS

Case No: SLP(C) No. 15778/2021

A Bench of Supreme Court Judges Hon'ble Mr. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA and Hon'ble JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL directed that the petitioner be reinstated into service within thirty days from the date of order and he shall be entitled to receive 50 percent of salary for the period he is said to have been relieved from service.

Facts of the case are:

The appellant has been in service of the respondent since 1990. After having put in 13 years of service, he tendered his resignation on 05.12.2013 stating that it may be considered as coming into effect on expiry of one month. On the question whether this resignation letter was withdrawn before its acceptance, there are a number of letters and instances cited by the appellant and the respondent as well, but the crucial letters that would clinch the issue are just four in number.

The respondent states that the letter of resignation was accepted on 15.04.2014 w.e.f from 07.04.2014. Respondent further states that the appellant sought to withdraw his resignation dated 05.12.2013 only on 26.05.2014, which could not be accepted and therefore, they have rejected the request on 23.06.2014 and relieved the appellant w.e.f. 01.07.2014. On the other hand, the appellant's primary submission was that the letter dated 15.04.2014 was never issued to him. It was only an internal communication of the respondent. He further submits that the said communication dated 15.04.2014 was not even marked to the appellant and it has no reference to appellant's resignation letter dated 05.12.2013.

That, it is an internal communication is also evidenced by the fact that it does not fix any date for relieving, instead it directed necessary action like no dues certificate etc. to be given to the appellant before relieving him. Importantly, the appellant fortifies his case by stating that he continued in service despite the initial letter dated 05.12.2013 and had in fact reported on 19.05.2014. He relied on letter dated 10.05.2014 issued by the respondent directing him to report to duty pursuant to his application dated 24.04.2014 for casual leave for two days i.e. for 25th and 26th of April 2014. He also relied on letters of his wife dated 17.04.2014 and 20.05.2014 requesting the respondent not to accept her husband's resignation. A certificate of competency issued by the respondent stating that the appellant is competent to take the Engineering Block is also relied on by the respondent employer.

Direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while allowing the appeal is as under:

13. In view of the above, and in the facts and the circumstances of the case, we allow the appeal and set-aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No. 3982 of 2019 (S-RES).

13.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the appellant shall be reinstated into service within thirty days from the date of our order. He shall however be entitled to receive 50 percent of salary for the period he is said to have been relieved from service i.e. from 01.07.2014 under letter dated 23.06.2014 to the date of reinstatement, pursuant to our orders. The amount shall be calculated and paid within a period of two months from today. This period shall however be counted for pensionary benefits, if any.

Download Judgment dated 13th September 2024 in S.D. MANOHARA VS KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS, SLP(C) No. 15778/202.

 

Latest Supreme Court Judgments

Stamp Duty should be paid while registering Agreement to Sell which shows transfer of physical possession of property, Supreme Court, Appeal dismissed
Prosecution failed to place any evidence to prove suppression of material information, accused acquitted by the Supreme Court, in a case of holding a second passport
Supreme Court set aside the Judgment of High Court acquitting the accused who stored and watched child pornography on mobile phone.
Independent review by authority recommending and granting sanction are necessary aspects of compliance with Section 45 of the UAPA
Accused in a dowry death case acquitted by Supreme Court as necessary ingredients have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt .
Supreme Court granted bail Mr. Arvind Kejriwal in CBI case in connection with the alleged liquor excise policy case filed by CBI. Separate Judgment.
FIR against illegal sex determination test quashed by supreme court as there was nothing to connect the accused with the offence except search and seizure documents
Election Petition properly filed with particulars of corrupt practices require trial. Appeal against rejection of application under order VII Rule 11 dismissed by Supreme Court
High Court was not right in dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches - Supreme Court
Resignation withdrawn before delayed acceptance. Supreme Court directed for reinstatement of employee.
Criminal Appeal allowed and detention order quashed by the Supreme Court on the ground of delay in deciding representation given by the accused to detaining authorities
Offer of Possession without completion certificate is not valid Supreme Court orders full refund of amount paid by consumer with 9% interest p.a. and Rs. 15 lakh compensation
Supreme Court orders complete and fair investigation by CBI into the death of Assistant District Prosecution Officer, Dantewada
Lawyer did not conduct proper cross-examination is no ground to recall witness under 311 CrPC, Supreme Court.

 

Supreme Court order dated 20.08.2024, in Kolkatta rape and murder case of doctor, to formulate protocols governing issues in the health care sector and protection of Doctors and Healthcare staff
Writ Petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking direction for ensuring protection for doctors and health care professionals, Improved working conditions and safety working environment