In a significant judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, GMR Legal had the privilege of representing Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (RRVPNL), where the court clarified an important aspect of employment law, particularly concerning the withdrawal of resignation by an employee.
The matter was adjudicated by a single judge bench of Hon’ble Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, who reaffirmed the principle that resignation, once accepted, cannot be withdrawn by the employee. This ruling arose from a petition filed by an employee seeking to retract his resignation and be reinstated in service with consequential benefits.
Case Background:
The petitioner in the case had initially applied for voluntary retirement on August 1, 2008, under Regulation 18(3) of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB) Employees Service Regulations, 1963. Due to manpower shortages, this application was rejected by the respondent (RRVPNL). Undeterred, the petitioner made a second application for voluntary retirement on December 10, 2008, but no action was taken on this application despite multiple reminders.
Subsequently, on April 13, 2009, the petitioner tendered his resignation, which was accepted by RRVPNL with effect from May 16, 2009, under Regulation 16 of the 1964 Regulations. Shortly after the resignation was accepted, the petitioner submitted an application on May 25, 2009, claiming that he had made a mistake and sought to be reinstated.
The respondent rejected this request, leading the petitioner to file a writ petition before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, challenging the refusal to withdraw the resignation and seeking to treat it as an application for voluntary retirement.
Issues for Consideration:
The court had to consider the following key issues:
- Can an employee withdraw a resignation after its acceptance?
- Can the resignation be treated as voluntary retirement?
- Is the petitioner entitled to service and pensionary benefits? Court’s Observations and Analysis:
Relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. v. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma (2020) 3 SCC 346, the court observed that resignation and voluntary retirement are two distinct legal concepts. The denial of voluntary retirement in the petitioner’s case could not justify a reversal of the resignation, which had been accepted.
The Court opined that resignation, being a voluntary relinquishment of one’s right to an office, carries significant legal consequences. Once accepted, it results in the severance of the jural relationship between the employee and employer. The court emphasized that resignation amounts to relinquishment, and as such, the petitioner’s services were forfeited as per Regulation 16 of the 1964 Regulations upon his resignation. Therefore, he was not entitled to pensionary or other service-related benefits.
The judgment further clarified that an employee can only withdraw their resignation before it becomes effective, as the jural relationship between the employer and employee continues until the effective date. In this case, however, the resignation had been accepted and was legally binding.
Conclusion:
The Rajasthan High Court’s decision reaffirms a well-established legal position: Resignation, once accepted, cannot be withdrawn. In the words of the Court, resignation is an act of relinquishment of one’s rights to an office, and when it is accepted by the employer, the employee cannot later seek to retract it. The petitioner’s request to treat his resignation as an application for voluntary retirement was denied, and his claim for service and pensionary benefits was rejected.
This judgment serves as a critical reminder to employees that resignation is a serious and irrevocable act once accepted. For employers and legal professionals, it highlights the importance of adhering to the regulatory frameworks governing employee resignations and voluntary retirements.
The case of Narayan Shankar Upadhyaya v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (2023 SCC OnLine Raj 374) underscores the gravity of resignation in employment law and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.
