Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal of Resignation Before Effective Date: Suman V. Jain vs. Marwadi Sammelan (20 February 2024)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee can withdraw a prospective resignation before its effective date. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Dr. Mrs. Suman V. Jain vs. Marwadi Sammelan through its Secretary and Others. Judgment Date: 20 February 2024

Date of the Judgment: 20 February 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 127

Judges: J.K. Maheshwari J. and K.V. Viswanathan J.

Can an employee withdraw their resignation before it becomes effective? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a college principal who sought to withdraw her resignation before its effective date. The Court examined whether the resignation was indeed final and irrevocable, or if the employee had the right to change her mind. This judgment clarifies the rights of employees regarding resignation and withdrawal, especially in the absence of specific contractual bars.

The Supreme Court, in this case, examined the circumstances under which a prospective resignation can be withdrawn by an employee. The court analyzed the facts and relevant legal precedents to determine whether the appellant, a college principal, had the right to withdraw her resignation before the effective date. The bench comprised Justices J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, with the judgment authored by Justice J.K. Maheshwari.

Case Background

Dr. Mrs. Suman V. Jain, the appellant, was appointed as Principal of B.M. Ruia Girls and G.D. Birla Girls College on 01 July 1992. The college was affiliated with SNDT University and managed by the Marwadi Sammelan Trust (respondent No. 1). After a change in the Trust’s management in December 1998, the appellant faced interference in her duties and inappropriate comments from a new convenor appointed in 2001. On 18 February 2003, the appellant and her colleagues protested these issues through a letter. Subsequently, on 05 March 2003, the Trust alleged financial irregularities and indiscipline against the appellant. She withdrew her protest on 04 March 2003. On 25 March 2003, citing health issues, she submitted a resignation letter to the Trust, effective from 24 September 2003. The Trust, on the same day, decided to conduct an inquiry and directed her to proceed on leave, appointing Mrs. Purvi Shah as officiating principal. On 28 March 2003, the Trust asked her to submit an unconditional resignation to drop the inquiry, which she did not. On 31 March 2003, the appellant requested the Trust to accept her resignation from the prospective date of 24 September 2003. On 08 April 2003, the Trust accepted her resignation, stating it was final, binding, and irrevocable. On 09 September 2003, the appellant sought to withdraw her resignation before the effective date. This request was rejected by the Trust, leading to the legal battle.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially challenged the rejection of her withdrawal of resignation before the Mumbai University and College Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed her appeal, stating it was not maintainable under Section 59(1) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, as it was not an order of dismissal, removal, or termination. However, the Tribunal also considered the merits and held that while a prospective resignation could be withdrawn, there was an implied understanding against it in this case, citing the House of Lords’ decision in The Rev. Oswald Joseph Reichel Vs. The Right Rev. John Fielder (1889). The appellant then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which upheld the Tribunal’s decision. The High Court relied on the principle of estoppel and waiver, stating that the appellant had given up her right to withdraw the resignation. The Division Bench of the High Court also affirmed these findings, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily discusses the interpretation of service law and the right of an employee to withdraw a prospective resignation. It refers to Section 59(1) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, which deals with appeals against orders of dismissal, removal, or termination of service. The case also considers the general principles of contract law, specifically the concepts of estoppel and waiver. The core legal principle revolves around the interpretation of the term ‘resignation’ and whether a prospective resignation can be withdrawn before its effective date. The Supreme Court also examines the principle of locus poenitentiae, which is the opportunity to withdraw a resignation before it takes effect. The Court also considered the SNDT Women’s University Statute, which empowers the Governing Body of the management to accept the resignation of an employee.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that her resignation was a prospective one, effective from 24 September 2003, and could be withdrawn before that date, as per the judgment in Union of India and Others vs. Gopal Chand Misra and Others, (1978) 2 SCC 301.
• She contended that the decision in Rev. Oswald (supra), relied upon by the lower courts, was distinguishable as it involved a deed of resignation executed before witnesses, which was not the case here.
• She highlighted that there was no written contract or rule prohibiting the withdrawal of a prospective resignation and that the finding of an implied contract was incorrect.
• The appellant also argued that the period from the date of acceptance of her resignation until she joined a new college should be regularized to avoid prejudice to her pension.
• The appellant relied on judgments such as Srikantha S.M. Vs. Bharath Earth Movers Limited, (2005) 8 SCC 314; Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India and Another, 1987 (Supp) SCC 228; Air India Express Limited and Others Vs. Captain Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu, (2019) 17 SCC 129 and New Victoria Mills and Others Vs. Shrikant Arya, (2021) 13 SCC 771 to support her claim that a prospective resignation can be withdrawn before it becomes effective.

Trust’s Arguments:

• The Trust argued that the case was not about withdrawing a resignation from a future date but about a mutual understanding where the resignation was accepted, and the controversy was settled.
• They contended that the appellant did not object to the letter dated 08 April 2003, which accepted her resignation as final and irrevocable, and therefore, the principle of locus poenitentiae did not apply.
• The Trust argued that the appellant’s resignation was to avoid a departmental inquiry, and it was accepted as irrevocable.
• The Trust relied on judgments such as BSES Yamuna Power Limited Vs. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma and Others, (2020) 3 SCC 346, B.L. Shreedhar and Others Vs. K.N. Munireddy and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 355, Air India Express Limited (supra), Gopal Chand Misra (supra), Balram Gupta (supra), and The Rev. Oswald (supra) to support their position.

Respondent Nos. 3 and 4’s Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the College was run by the Trust and affiliated with SNDT University.
• They contended that the Governing Body of the management was empowered to accept the resignation, and the government had no role to play in the acceptance or refusal of the resignation.
• They submitted that once the resignation was accepted by the Governing Body, the findings recorded by the Tribunal and High Court did not warrant any interference.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument innovatively distinguished the facts of the present case from the facts of Rev. Oswald (supra), which was relied on by the lower courts. Additionally, the appellant’s argument on the regularization of service period to avoid prejudice to pension was also a novel approach.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for determination:

1. Whether, in the facts of the case, the withdrawal of the resignation dated 25 March 2003 submitted by the appellant prior to the effective date, i.e., 24 September 2003, ought to have been permitted?
2. Whether, in the facts of the case, the letter of the Management dated 08 April 2003 accepting the resignation was final, binding, and irrevocable; and the rejection of the request for withdrawal of such resignation was in accordance with law?
3. Whether, in the facts of the case, what relief could be granted to the Appellant?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court’s judgment carefully analyzed each authority cited by both parties. The Court distinguished the facts of The Rev. Oswald Joseph Reichel Vs. The Right Rev. John Fielder (1889)* from the present case, noting that the resignation in that case was based on a deed executed before witnesses. The Court relied heavily on the principles laid down in Union of India and Others Vs. Gopal Chand Misra and Others, (1978) 2 SCC 301*, which established that a prospective resignation can be withdrawn before it becomes effective. The Court also followed the principle of locus poenitentiae as discussed in Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 180* and Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India and Another, 1987 (Supp) SCC 228*, holding that an employee has the right to withdraw a resignation before its acceptance. The Court also relied on Srikantha S.M. Vs. Bharath Earth Movers Limited, (2005) 8 SCC 314* to explain the principle of “vinculum juris,” emphasizing that the employer-employee relationship continues until the effective date of resignation. The Court distinguished the case of BSES Yamuna Power Limited Vs. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma and Others, (2020) 3 SCC 346*, stating that it dealt with the issue of resignation versus voluntary retirement, which was not relevant to the present case. The Court also reaffirmed the principles in Air India Express Limited and Others Vs. Captain Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu, (2019) 17 SCC 129*, which held that a prospective resignation can be withdrawn unless there is a legal, contractual, or constitutional bar.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a prospective resignation can be withdrawn before its effective date, especially in the absence of any specific legal or contractual bar. The court emphasized that the resignation given by the appellant was an intimation of a future event, which could be withdrawn before it took effect. The court also noted that the acceptance of the resignation by the Trust was unilateral and without the prior consent of the appellant, and hence, could not be deemed final and irrevocable. The court also considered the fact that the appellant had sought to withdraw her resignation before the effective date, which was not given due consideration by the lower courts. The court also considered the fact that the appellant had attained the age of superannuation and that it would not be appropriate to direct her to join the respondent institution. The court also considered the need to regularize the appellant’s service period to avoid prejudice to her pensionary benefits. The court also considered the fact that the Trust had made arrangements for an officiating principal and that there was no public interest at stake in allowing the withdrawal of the resignation.

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was that the resignation submitted by the appellant was a prospective resignation, which could be withdrawn before its effective date. The Court rejected the finding of an implied contract that the resignation was irrevocable. The Court also held that the acceptance of the resignation by the Trust was unilateral and without prior consent, and hence, not valid. The Court also held that the appellant had the right to withdraw the resignation before the effective date, and that the Trust was not justified in rejecting the withdrawal. The Court also considered the need to regularize the appellant’s service period to avoid prejudice to her pensionary benefits.

The Court considered the argument that the appellant’s resignation was to avoid a departmental inquiry, but rejected it as there was no evidence to support this contention. The Court also considered the argument that the appellant did not object to the letter dated 08.04.2003, but held that her letter dated 11.08.2003 did not indicate acceptance of the resignation as final and irrevocable. The Court held that the judgment of Rev. Oswald (supra) did not apply to the facts of the present case as the resignation in that case was a deed executed before witnesses, which was not the case here. The Court also held that the principle of locus poenitentiae applied to the present case, and that the appellant had the right to withdraw her resignation before the effective date.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice J.K. Maheshwari, with Justice K.V. Viswanathan concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases involving the withdrawal of prospective resignations. The Court has clarified that, in the absence of any legal or contractual bar, an employee has the right to withdraw a prospective resignation before its effective date. The judgment also emphasizes that the acceptance of a resignation must be with the prior consent of the employee, and that a unilateral acceptance is not valid. The judgment also highlights the importance of considering the principle of locus poenitentiae, which allows an employee to change their mind before the resignation becomes effective. The judgment also has implications for the calculation of pensionary benefits, as the court has directed the Trust to regularize the appellant’s service period for the purpose of calculating her pension.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this case. The judgment primarily reaffirmed the existing legal principles regarding the withdrawal of prospective resignations, as laid down in previous judgments of the Supreme Court.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The general principle that emerges from the foregoing conspectus, is that in the absence of anything to the contrary in the provisions governing the terms and conditions of the office/post, an intimation in writing sent to the competent authority by the incumbent, of his intention or proposal to resign his office/post from a future specified date can be withdrawn by him at any time before it becomes effective, i.e. before it effects termination of the tenure of the office/post or the employment.”

“In the case at hand, the unconditional resignation waiving the requirement of six months’ notice as demanded by the Trust was not submitted by the appellant. Without prior consent, the acceptance of resignation vide letter dated 08.04.2003 using the words final, binding and irrevocable was unilateral.”

“In the absence of anything contrary in the provisions governing the terms and conditions of the office or post and in the absence of any legal contractual or constitutional bar, a prospective resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective as discussed above.”

Key Takeaways

• An employee can withdraw a prospective resignation before its effective date, unless there is a legal or contractual bar.
• The acceptance of a resignation must be with the prior consent of the employee.
• Unilateral acceptance of a resignation is not valid.
• The principle of locus poenitentiae allows an employee to withdraw a resignation before it becomes effective.
• The service period of an employee can be regularized for pension purposes, even if the employee did not work during that period, due to a wrongful rejection of withdrawal of resignation.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Trust to regularize the service period of the appellant from 24 September 2003 to 01 October 2007, treating it as a period spent on duty for all purposes, including pension. The court also directed the Trust to calculate and pay the appellant’s pension and other retiral benefits, including arrears of pension, within four months, failing which the appellant would be entitled to interest at 7% per annum.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a prospective resignation can be withdrawn by an employee before its effective date, unless there is a legal or contractual bar. This judgment reaffirms the established legal position as laid down in the case of Gopal Chandra Misra (supra) and other cases. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the application of the principle of locus poenitentiae and the need for prior consent for acceptance of resignation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the College Tribunal and the High Court. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to withdraw her prospective resignation before its effective date, as there was no legal or contractual bar. The Court directed the Trust to regularize the appellant’s service period and grant her pensionary benefits. This judgment clarifies the rights of employees regarding the withdrawal of prospective resignations and emphasizes the need for prior consent for acceptance of resignation.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Category: Resignation

Child Category: Withdrawal of Resignation

Child Category: Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994

Child Category: Section 59, Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994

FAQ

Q: Can an employee withdraw their resignation after submitting it?

A: Yes, if the resignation is prospective, meaning it is to take effect on a future date, it can be withdrawn before that date, unless there is a specific legal or contractual bar.

Q: What is a prospective resignation?

A: A prospective resignation is when an employee submits their resignation but specifies a future date for it to take effect.

Q: What does ‘locus poenitentiae’ mean in the context of resignation?

A: ‘Locus poenitentiae’ refers to the opportunity for an employee to withdraw their resignation before it becomes effective.

Q: Can an employer unilaterally accept a resignation and make it irrevocable?

A: No, the acceptance of a resignation must be with the prior consent of the employee, and a unilateral acceptance is not valid.

Q: What happens if an employer rejects the withdrawal of a valid resignation?

A: If an employer wrongfully rejects the withdrawal of a valid resignation, the employee may be entitled to have their service period regularized for pension purposes.