Date of the Judgment: 27 February 2023
Citation: Civil Appeal No 24 of 2013
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J, J B Pardiwala, J.
Can a government employee be denied full pension benefits if they had resigned but then withdrew their resignation before it was officially accepted? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on the calculation of pensionable service in cases where a resignation was submitted, withdrawn, and then later accepted. The core issue revolved around the interpretation of service breaks and their effect on an employee’s pension eligibility. The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and J B Pardiwala, delivered the judgment.
Case Background
The appellant, Bhartiben Chandrakantbhai Thakor, was employed as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife by the District Panchayat, Valsad. She initially joined on 15 January 1980. On 18 April 1993, she submitted her resignation. However, she withdrew her resignation on 23 November 1993. Despite the withdrawal, she was not allowed to resume her duties until 16 April 1994. Subsequently, on 23/26 December 1994, an order was passed accepting her resignation with effect from 31 March 1993. This led to a series of legal challenges.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 15 January 1980 | Appellant appointed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife. |
| 18 April 1993 | Appellant submitted her resignation. |
| 23 November 1993 | Appellant withdrew her resignation. |
| 20 December 1993 | Appellant was called to resume service. |
| 16 April 1994 | Appellant was permitted to join service. |
| 23/26 December 1994 | Order passed accepting resignation with effect from 31 March 1993. |
| 12 October 2000 | Single Judge of the High Court set aside the order dated 23/26 December 1994. |
| 22 February 2001 | Division Bench modified the order and held that the appellant was not entitled to benefits for the period of resignation. |
| 8 April 2002 | Order passed treating the period from 24 November 1993 to 30 March 2001 as unauthorized leave. |
| 17 July 2002 | Order passed treating the period of resignation as unauthorized leave. |
| 9 August 2004 | Single Judge of the High Court quashed orders dated 8 April 2002 and 17 July 2002. |
| 16 July 2005 | Order passed treating certain periods as unauthorized leave and break in service. |
| 25 July 2006 | High Court held that no continuity of service could be granted. |
| 17 February 2009 | Division Bench affirmed the judgment of the Single Judge. |
| 30 November 2011 | Appellant granted voluntary retirement. |
| 27 February 2023 | Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, the appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order accepting her resignation. A Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat set aside the order and directed that the appellant would be entitled to all consequential benefits. However, in a Letters Patent Appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court modified the order, stating that the appellant would not be entitled to any benefits for the period during which the resignation was in force. Subsequently, orders were passed treating certain periods as unauthorized leave, which were challenged and initially quashed by the High Court. Despite these orders being quashed, a third order was passed, which led to another round of litigation. The High Court ultimately ruled against the appellant, which led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of service rules and their impact on pensionable service, particularly in situations where an employee resigns and then withdraws the resignation before it is accepted. The core legal issue is the calculation of continuous service for the purpose of pension benefits. The judgment also touches upon the powers of the State government to pass orders affecting an employee’s service record after the matter has attained finality in court. The case is decided based on the principles of service law and the interpretation of the concept of resignation and its withdrawal.
Arguments
The arguments presented by both sides are as follows:
- Appellant’s Submissions:
- The appellant argued that her resignation was withdrawn on 23 November 1993, before it was accepted.
- She contended that the subsequent order accepting her resignation with effect from 31 March 1993 was legally invalid.
- The appellant emphasized that the High Court had already determined that she was not entitled to benefits only for the period between 18 April 1993 and 23 November 1993.
- She argued that the State government could not pass successive orders treating her absence as a break in service after the dispute had attained finality.
- The appellant submitted that she had completed the minimum pensionable service of 25 years and was entitled to full pension benefits.
- State of Gujarat’s Submissions:
- The State of Gujarat argued that the appellant’s absence from service for a total of 782 days constituted a break in service.
- They contended that the appellant was not entitled to continuity of service due to her absence.
- The State justified its orders by stating that the periods of absence should be treated as unauthorized leave, leading to a reduction in pensionable service.
The innovativeness of the appellant’s argument lies in emphasizing the legal effect of withdrawing her resignation before its acceptance and highlighting the finality of the High Court’s earlier orders.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | State of Gujarat’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of Resignation |
|
|
| Entitlement to Benefits |
|
|
| Finality of Court Orders |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:
- Whether the appellant’s resignation, which was withdrawn before acceptance, could be legally accepted subsequently.
- Whether the State government could pass successive orders treating periods of absence as a break in service after the dispute had attained finality.
- Whether the appellant had completed the minimum pensionable service of 25 years, considering the periods of absence.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of Resignation Acceptance | Invalid | The resignation was withdrawn before its acceptance, rendering the subsequent acceptance order legally inconsequential. |
| Successive Orders by State Government | Invalid | The State government could not pass successive orders after the dispute over the resignation had attained finality in court. |
| Completion of Pensionable Service | Completed | The appellant was deemed to have completed the minimum pensionable service of 25 years, and her pensionary dues were to be computed on that basis. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any cases or books in this judgment.
The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India: This article grants High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purposes.
Authorities Table
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Article 226 of the Constitution of India | Supreme Court of India | The court used this article to highlight the jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions and authorities as follows:
Treatment of Submissions
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the resignation was withdrawn before acceptance. | Accepted. The Court held that the order accepting the resignation after its withdrawal was of no legal consequence. |
| Appellant’s submission that the State could not pass successive orders after the dispute attained finality. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the State could not continue passing orders after the matter was settled by the High Court. |
| Appellant’s submission that she completed the minimum pensionable service of 25 years. | Accepted. The Court held that the appellant should be treated as having completed 25 years of pensionable service. |
| State of Gujarat’s submission that the appellant’s absence constituted a break in service. | Rejected. The Court held that the period between 18 April 1993 and 23 November 1993 was the only period for which the appellant was not entitled to benefits. |
| State of Gujarat’s submission that the appellant was not entitled to continuity of service. | Rejected. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to continuity of service, except for the period between 18 April 1993 and 23 November 1993. |
| State of Gujarat’s submission that the periods of absence should be treated as unauthorized leave. | Rejected. The Court held that the State could not treat the periods of absence as unauthorized leave after the matter was settled by the High Court. |
Treatment of Authorities
The Court relied on the interpretation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to highlight the jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter.
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The Court used this article to highlight the jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The fact that the appellant had withdrawn her resignation before it was accepted.
- The legal principle that an order accepting a resignation after it has been withdrawn is invalid.
- The finality of the High Court’s earlier orders, which had already determined the period for which the appellant was not entitled to benefits.
- The need to ensure that the appellant received her rightful pension benefits after having served for a substantial period.
Sentiment Analysis Table
| Reason | Sentiment Percentage |
|---|---|
| Withdrawal of resignation before acceptance | 30% |
| Invalidity of subsequent acceptance order | 25% |
| Finality of High Court orders | 25% |
| Entitlement to pension benefits | 20% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Logical Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s resignation was effectively withdrawn on 23 November 1993, before it was accepted. The subsequent order accepting her resignation with effect from 31 March 1993 was deemed to be of no legal consequence. The Court also emphasized that the State government could not pass successive orders treating the appellant’s absence as a break in service after the dispute had attained finality. The Court noted that the appellant was not entitled to any consequential benefits only for the period between 18 April 1993 and 23 November 1993. The Court concluded that the appellant should be treated as having completed the minimum pensionable service of 25 years.
The Court stated, “The expression “for the period for which resignation was in force” cannot be stretched to a date after the resignation had been withdrawn on 23 November 1993 before it came into force.”
The Court also noted, “Clearly, it was not open to the State to continue passing successive order of this nature once the dispute over the period of resignation and the manner in which the resignation had to be treated had attained finality.”
The Court further stated, “For the reasons which we have indicated in the text of this judgment, we have come to the conclusion that the appellant should be treated to have completed the minimum pensionable service of 25 years.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ A resignation that is withdrawn before acceptance has no legal effect.
- ✓ Government authorities cannot pass successive orders on the same issue after it has been decided by a court.
- ✓ Employees are entitled to full pension benefits if they have completed the minimum pensionable service, even if there were periods of absence due to a resignation that was later withdrawn.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that:
- The pensionary dues payable to the appellant shall be computed on the basis that she has completed 25 years of pensionable service.
- The pensionary payments shall be computed within a period of two months from the date of the order.
- The arrears of pension shall be paid to the appellant within one month thereafter, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a resignation, once withdrawn before its acceptance, becomes legally ineffective. This judgment clarifies that the calculation of pensionable service should not be adversely affected by a resignation that was withdrawn prior to acceptance. This reinforces the principle that once a dispute has attained finality, it cannot be reopened by the authorities.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Bhartiben Chandrakantbhai Thakor vs. State of Gujarat clarifies the legal position regarding the withdrawal of a resignation before its acceptance and its impact on pensionable service. The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that she was entitled to full pension benefits as she had completed the minimum pensionable service of 25 years. This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to legal principles and the finality of court orders in service matters.