Case Title: Madhav Prasad Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Case No: WP No. 938 of 2013
Decided on: 4th January, 2024
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
Facts of the Case
The petitioner claimed to have resigned in 1994 citing ‘torture’ during his service. Despite submitting an application for reinstatement in 2010, it was rejected by the Director General of Police, Police Headquarters. The petitioner sought court intervention to instruct the authorities to reinstate him with all associated benefits and interest at a rate of 14% per annum.
In response, the respondents argued that as the petitioner had voluntarily resigned to the Superintendent of Police, there was no provision for reinstatement after the acceptance of the resignation. Advocate Arnav Tiwari, representing the respondents, added that the petition was filed 19 years after the petitioner’s resignation was accepted in June 1994.
Issues
Whether the government allow an employee to retract an application for voluntary resignation from the service once it is accepted? Will an employee be reinstated to his position after submitting a voluntary resignation?
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that despite counselling and initial resistance from the respondents to accept the petitioner’s resignation letter, he persisted in his decision for voluntary retirement, which was eventually accepted. Regarding the possibility of allowing an employee to withdraw such an application for voluntary resignation, the Court considered the precedent set in P. Lal v. Union of India (2003). In that case, the Supreme Court established that once the Government accepts the notice for voluntary retirement, the retirement becomes effective, and the employer-employee relationship is terminated.
“The law in regard to resignation is that concept is bilateral and requires acceptance and it follows that offer of resignation can be withdrawn before acceptance as is held by the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Gopal Chandra Misra AIR 1978 SC 694, Ravindra Singh vs. State of M.P. (1995) 3 SLJ 65 (SC) and thus, it is evident that once resignation was made and it was accepted, then its withdrawal after acceptance is not permissible as held in case of G. Kailashapathi Rao vs. Committee of Bandlamudi Hanumayanama Hindu Degree Junior College for Women 1994 (2) SLR 554 (AP),” Justice Tiwari observed.
The Court thus ascertained that the respondents’ refusal to accept the the petitioner’s request to permit him to be reinstated could therefore not be faulted with. The plea was thus dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Afshan Ahmad
Click here to read the judgement
