Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a Development Officer employed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Aurangabad, approached the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition challenging a communication dated 30.09.2019 that accepted his resignation. The dispute arose after the petitioner tendered resignation on 31.08.2019 with effect from 30.09.2019, then withdrew the resignation on 20.09.2019 before the effective date. The employer ignored the withdrawal and accepted the resignation on 30.09.2019. The petitioner had joined LIC as a Development Officer at Aurangabad. On 31.08.2019, he submitted a resignation letter clearly stating that it would be effective from 30.09.2019. He attended an exit interview on 19.09.2019 and interacted with the Marketing Manager. After the discussion, he realized that he had taken an emotional decision because his LTC facility was denied. Consequently, on 20.09.2019, he submitted an application with the subject 'withdrawal of my resignation letter dated 31.08.2019' to the Chief Manager, and the application was acknowledged with an official stamp. Despite this, LIC issued a letter dated 30.09.2019 accepting the resignation. The petitioner refused to accept the letter. He then filed a grievance letter dated 04.10.2019 and subsequently preferred appeals to the Marketing Manager on 12.11.2019, to the Senior Divisional Manager on 21.11.2019, and to the Chairman and Zonal Manager on 18.12.2019, but no decision was taken on those appeals. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the acceptance letter. The employer defended the action by contending that the Staff Regulations do not permit withdrawal of resignation, that the petitioner had poor performance and was unable to recruit or retain agents, and that once a resignation is accepted the decision cannot be retracted. The High Court held that the petitioner had given 30 days notice, participated in the exit interview, and withdrew his resignation within 24 hours before the effective date. Relying on Supreme Court decisions including Food Inspector, Ernakulam v. P.S. Shenoy, North Zone Cultural Centre v. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar, and Manubhai Chhaganbhai Thakore v. Union of India, the court concluded that a resignation which operates prospectively can be withdrawn before the effective date, and any acceptance after withdrawal is invalid. The court rejected the employer's contention that its decision could not be retracted, invoking the Wednesbury principle of judicial review and noting that LIC is covered by Article 12 of the Constitution. On the question of back wages, the court considered Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and held that the petitioner suffered involuntary unemployment and was unemployed since termination. To balance equities, the court awarded 75% back wages payable on or before 30.10.2021, with interest at 4% per annum in case of delay. The rule was made absolute and no costs were ordered.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Resignation and Withdrawal - Withdrawal of prospective resignation before effective date - Not mentioned - The petitioner tendered resignation on 31.08.2019 to take effect on 30.09.2019, attended exit interview, and withdrew resignation on 20.09.2019 with acknowledged delivery to Chief Manager. The respondent employer nevertheless issued acceptance on 30.09.2019. Held that a resignation that operates prospectively after notice can be withdrawn before the effective date, and acceptance after withdrawal is invalid; the petitioner was not estopped from withdrawing merely because resignation was voluntary (Paras 3-11). B) Judicial Review - Wednesbury Principles - Scope of judicial review of administrative decisions - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 12 - The employer contended that once a decision is taken by competent authority it cannot be retracted. Held that the employer is covered by Article 12 of the Constitution, and its administrative decisions are subject to judicial review on grounds of arbitrariness and unreasonableness under the Wednesbury principle; the contention that the decision could not be retracted was rejected (Paras 12-13). C) Service Law - Back Wages - Quantum of back wages upon invalid termination - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 12 - The court awarded 75% back wages, balancing equities, payable by 30.10.2021, with 4% per annum interest on delayed payment; held that the employee suffered involuntary unemployment and normally 100% back wages would be payable under Deepali Gundu Surwase, but 75% balanced equities (Paras 14-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent employer could accept the petitioner's resignation despite his valid withdrawal before the effective date; whether the acceptance letter dated 30.09.2019 should be quashed; and what back wages should be granted.
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed. The impugned letter dated 30.09.2019 accepting the petitioner's resignation was quashed and set aside. The petitioner was awarded 75% back wages payable on or before 30.10.2021, failing which the amount would carry interest at 4% per annum. Rule was made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Resignation with prospective effect can be withdrawn before effective date
- acceptance after withdrawal is invalid
- Resignation tendered under emotional stress after LTC denial and withdrawn within 24 hours prior to effective date cannot be accepted
- Public authority under Article 12 cannot claim administrative decision cannot be retracted and is subject to judicial review under Wednesbury principle
- Employee who suffers involuntary unemployment due to invalid termination is entitled to back wages
- Here 75% back wages with 4% interest if delayed
- No costs
