# Poornima Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 184
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-06
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 608 of 2022
- **Bench:** Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/poornima-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51757
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Law
-
Resignation
and
Withdrawal - Validity of Acceptance -
Petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, challenged the
order dated 31.3.2021 accepting her resignation
despite her withdrawal applications dated
5.2.2021 and 11.2.2021 - Held, under Rule 7 of
the U.P. Government Servants Resignation
Rules,
2000,
a
government
servant
can
withdraw resignation before its acceptance -
The
petitioner's
withdrawal
applications,
supported by evidence of submission and postal
delivery,
preceded
the
acceptance
order,
rendering it unsustainable, as per Lalit Mohan
Upadhyay

Vs
The
Principal,
Kumaun
Engineering College and U.O.I. Vs Gopal
Chandra Misra - The order dated 31.3.2021 was
quashed. (Paras 6, 7, 11, 12, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27)

B.
Service
Law
-
Procedure
for
Resignation Withdrawal - Petitioner alleged
that a clerk misled her into signing a resignation
letter and affidavit under the pretense of
facilitating a posting change - Held, the
petitioner promptly withdrew her resignation on
5.2.2021 and 11.2.2021, with the latter sent via
registered post and confirmed delivered - The
respondents'
denial
of
receiving
these
applications was rejected due to lack of
substantiation,
and
the
acceptance
of
resignation post-withdrawal was deemed illegal,
as per Pravesh Kumar Pal Vs St. of U.P. and
Dinesh Prasad Chaurasia Vs Managing Director.
(Paras 5, 6, 7, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26)

C. Service Law - Back Wages and Relief -
Petitioner sought reinSt.ment and back wages
after the quashing of the resignation acceptance
order - Held, as the petitioner did not perform
duties from 5.2.2021, full back wages were not
warranted - Following Shambhu Murari Sinha
Vs
Project
and
Development
India
and
Managing
Director,
Orissa
St.
Handloom
Weavers' Cooperative Society Vs Satyanarayan
Pattnaik, the petitioner was granted reinSt.ment
with continuity of service and 25% of admissible
back wages from 5.2.2021 until reinSt.ment,
balancing
equity
and
the
fact
of
nonperformance of duties. (Paras 28, 29, 31)

D.
Judicial
Review
-
Arbitrary
Administrative Action - The District Basic
Education Officer accepted the petitioner's
resignation
despite
her
timely
withdrawal
applications - Held, the acceptance order dated
31.3.2021 was arbitrary and contrary to the
legal principle that resignation can be withdrawn
before acceptance, as established in Balram
4 All. Poornima Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
185
Gupta Vs U.O.I.and Power Finance Corporation
Ltd. Vs Pramod Kumar Bhatia - The court
directed reinSt.ment within four weeks and
payment of 25% back wages within four
months, ensuring proportionality in relief.
(Paras 11, 13, 26, 27, 30, 31)

E. Service Law - Evidence of Withdrawal
Applications
-
Respondents
denied
receiving petitioner's withdrawal applications
dated 5.2.2021 and 11.2.2021 - Held, the
petitioner's
submission
of
the
5.2.2021
application
with
an
official
receipt
endorsement and the 11.2.2021 application
with postal tracking evidence sufficiently
established their delivery - The respondents'
bald denial in the counter affidavit was
insufficient to rebut the petitioner's evidence,
reinforcing the invalidity of the resignation
acceptance. (Paras 18, 19, 20)

Writ Petition Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,974 of 44,944. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39974 for what follows._

184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
clarified the issue by following the
observation in the case of T. Sudhakar Prasad
(supra) and rejected the objection declaring
the maintainability of the appeal before the
Supreme Court.

20. Considering the relevant provisions
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and also
observations made by the Apex Court, more
particularly in the case of T. Sudhakar
Prasad (supra), we hold that all the orders of
the Tribunal under the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 shall be appealable to the Supreme
Court only within a period of 60 days from
the date of the order and no writ petition is
maintainable before the High Court under
Article 226 / 277 of the Constitution of India.

21. Accordingly, the present writ
petition being not maintainable, is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 184
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ A No. 608 of 2022

Poornima Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kushmondeya Shahi, Sri Tanuj Shahi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh Kachhawah, C.S.C.,
Sri Sanjay kumar Srivastava

A.
Service
Law
-
Resignation
and
Withdrawal - Validity of Acceptance -
Petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, challenged the
order dated 31.3.2021 accepting her resignation
despite her withdrawal applications dated
5.2.2021 and 11.2.2021 - Held, under Rule 7 of
the U.P. Government Servants Resignation
Rules,
2000,
a
government
servant
can
withdraw resignation before its acceptance -
The
petitioner's
withdrawal
applications,
supported by evidence of submission and postal
delivery,
preceded
the
acceptance
order,
rendering it unsustainable, as per Lalit Mohan
Upadhyay

Vs
The
Principal,
Kumaun
Engineering College and U.O.I. Vs Gopal
Chandra Misra - The order dated 31.3.2021 was
quashed. (Paras 6, 7, 11, 12, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27)

B.
Service
Law
-
Procedure
for
Resignation Withdrawal - Petitioner alleged
that a clerk misled her into signing a resignation
letter and affidavit under the pretense of
facilitating a posting change - Held, the
petitioner promptly withdrew her resignation on
5.2.2021 and 11.2.2021, with the latter sent via
registered post and confirmed delivered - The
respondents'
denial
of
receiving
these
applications was rejected due to lack of
substantiation,
and
the
acceptance
of
resignation post-withdrawal was deemed illegal,
as per Pravesh Kumar Pal Vs St. of U.P. and
Dinesh Prasad Chaurasia Vs Managing Director.
(Paras 5, 6, 7, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26)

C. Service Law - Back Wages and Relief -
Petitioner sought reinSt.ment and back wages
after the quashing of the resignation acceptance
order - Held, as the petitioner did not perform
duties from 5.2.2021, full back wages were not
warranted - Following Shambhu Murari Sinha
Vs
Project
and
Development
India
and
Managing
Director,
Orissa
St.
Handloom
Weavers' Cooperative Society Vs Satyanarayan
Pattnaik, the petitioner was granted reinSt.ment
with continuity of service and 25% of admissible
back wages from 5.2.2021 until reinSt.ment,
balancing
equity
and
the
fact
of
nonperformance of duties. (Paras 28, 29, 31)

D.
Judicial
Review
-
Arbitrary
Administrative Action - The District Basic
Education Officer accepted the petitioner's
resignation
despite
her
timely
withdrawal
applications - Held, the acceptance order dated
31.3.2021 was arbitrary and contrary to the
legal principle that resignation can be withdrawn
before acceptance, as established in Balram
4 All. Poornima Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
185
Gupta Vs U.O.I.and Power Finance Corporation
Ltd. Vs Pramod Kumar Bhatia - The court
directed reinSt.ment within four weeks and
payment of 25% back wages within four
months, ensuring proportionality in relief.
(Paras 11, 13, 26, 27, 30, 31)

E. Service Law - Evidence of Withdrawal
Applications
-
Respondents
denied
receiving petitioner's withdrawal applications
dated 5.2.2021 and 11.2.2021 - Held, the
petitioner's
submission
of
the
5.2.2021
application
with
an
official
receipt
endorsement and the 11.2.2021 application
with postal tracking evidence sufficiently
established their delivery - The respondents'
bald denial in the counter affidavit was
insufficient to rebut the petitioner's evidence,
reinforcing the invalidity of the resignation
acceptance. (Paras 18, 19, 20)

Writ Petition Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Lalit Mohan Upadhyay Vs The Principal,
Kumaun
Engineering
College,
Dwarhat,
District Almora, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 130

2. U.O.I. Vs Gopal Chandra Misra, AIR 1978
SC 694

3. M/s. J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills
Co. Ltd., Kanpur Vs St. of U.P., AIR 1990 SC
1808

4. Pravesh Kumar Pal Vs St. of U.P., Writ
Petition No. 12263 (S/S) of 2020, decided on
12.1.2021

5. Dinesh Prasad Chaurasia Vs Managing
Director, 2016 (6) ADJ 550

6. Balram Gupta Vs U.O.I., AIR 1987 SC 2354

7. Power Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs Pramod
Kumar Bhatia, (1997) 4 SCC 280

8. Raj Kumar Vs U.O.I., (1968) 3 SCR 857

9. Shambhu Murari Sinha Vs Project and
Development India, 2000 (86) FLR 206
10. Managing Director, Orissa St. Handloom
Weavers'
Cooperative
Society
Ltd.

Vs
Satyanarayan Pattnaik, (2014) 3 SCC 218

11. Tanweer Alam Vs U.P. Cooperative Spinning
Mills Fed. Ltd., Writ-A No. 47852 of 2000,
decided on 31.08.2017

12. J.N. Srivastava Vs U.O.I., (1998) 9 SCC 559

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Tanuj Shahi, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner,
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
Respondents No.1 and 3 as well as learned
counsel appearing for the Respondents
No.2, 4 and 5.

2. Petitioner has filed this writ
petition challenging therein the order dated
31.3.2021 passed by the District Basic
Education Officer, Etah whereby her
resignation from the post of Assistant
Teacher has been accepted.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioner appeared in the selection for
appointment on the posts of Assistant
Teachers of Junior Basic Schools run by
the U.P. Basic Education Board. Petitioner
was selected and thereafter was issued an
appointment order on 5.12.2020. Pursuant
to appointment order dated 5.12.2020,
petitioner was allowed to join in the office
of District Basic Education Officer, Etah
and thereafter vide order dated 21.12.2020
she was directed to work on the post of
Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic School
Lalpur, Block Awagarh, District Etah.

4. Petitioner submitted her joining on
the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior
Basic School Lalpur, Block Awagarh,
District Etah on 23.12.2020 and thereafter,
the District Basic Education Officer, Etah
186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
passed another order on 29.1.2021 whereby
petitioner was posted as Assistant Teacher
in Junior Basic School Mirzapur, Block
Awagarh,
District
Etah.
Petitioner
submitted her joining in Junior Basic
School Mirzapur, Block Awagarh, District
Etah
on
3.2.2021.
Petitioner
being
unmarried female candidate was having
some difficulty to reach the aforesaid
school as the same was situated at a distant
place therefore, she requested the District
Basic Education Officer, Etah for changing
her posting to another school. Petitioner has
alleged in the writ petition that instead of
considering her request, one Mr. Vikrant
Pratap Singh posted as clerk in the office of
District Basic Education Officer, Etah
provided a printed letter and affidavit to the
petitioner and asked her to sign the said
papers with an assurance that in the next
counselling on the basis of such papers her
posting may be changed.

5. Petitioner under impression given
by the aforesaid Mr. Vikrant Pratap Singh
signed the aforesaid letter and affidavit and
submitted in the office of District Basic
Education Officer, Etah on 5.2.2021.
Thereafter, she realized that the contents of
the letter and affidavit which she submitted
on 5.2.2021 amount to her resignation from
the post of Assistant Teacher.

6. Petitioner
immediately
after
realizing her mistake submitted application
on 5.2.2021 itself to the District Basic
Education Officer, Etah whereby she
withdrew her resignation dated 5.2.2021.
Petitioner also submitted application to
District Magistrate, Etah on 8.2.2021
through registered post whereby she
informed about the entire case to the
District Magistrate, Etah and requested him
to help her out. As per online postal
tracking report, the aforesaid letter dated
8.2.2021 has been delivered in the office of
District Magistrate, Etah on 15.2.2021.

7. Later on, petitioner again submitted
an application on 11.2.2021 to the District
Basic Education Officer, Etah through
registered post whereby she requested that
her resignation dated 5.2.201 may not be
accepted as she does not want to resign
from her post. Petitioner in the application
dated 11.2.2021 further stated that she was
under
depression
and
thus,
tendered
resignation on 5.2.2021 but now she does
not intend to resign from her post. As per
online postal tracking report, the aforesaid
letter dated 11.2.2021 has been delivered in
the office of District Basic Education
Officer, Etah on 17.2.2021. The application
dated 11.2.2021 and online postal tracking
report have been annexed at page-34 and
35 of the writ petition.

8. Since no action was taken by the
District Basic Education Officer, Etah
therefore,
petitioner
also
submitted
representations to the higher authorities.

9. To the utter dismay of the
petitioner, she was served the copy of the
order dated 31.3.2021 vide communication
dated 3.6.2021 sent by the Block Education
Officer whereby petitioner for the first time
came to know that her resignation from the
post of Assistant Teacher dated 5.2.2021
has been accepted by the District Basic
Education Officer, Etah vide order dated
31.3.2021.

10. Petitioner in her writ petition has
taken various grounds to challenge the
order dated 31.3.2021 including that the
order accepting resignation of the petitioner
has been passed in the month of June but it
has been dated as 31.3.2021. Her main
ground to challenge the order dated
4 All. Poornima Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
187
31.3.2021 is that once petitioner withdrew
her
resignation
dated
5.2.2021
by
submitting applications dated 5.2.201 and
11.2.2021, the same could not have been
accepted.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has vehemently argued that it is
well settled proposition of law through
catena of judgments of this court as well as
of Hon'ble Supreme Court that resignation
can be withdrawn at any time before its
acceptance
therefore,
since
petitioner
withdrew her resignation by submitting
applications on 5.2.2021 and 11.2.2021,
there was no occasion for the District Basic
Education Officer, Etah to accept her
resignation on 31.3.2021. Learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner has further
argued that since order dated 31.3.2021 has
been passed after petitioner withdrew her
resignation by submitting applications on
5.2.2021 and 11.2.2021, the order dated
31.3.2021 is absolutely unsustainable in the
eyes of law.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has relied on Rule 7 of the Uttar
Pradesh Government Servants Resignation
Rules,
2000
wherein
it
has
been
categorically provided that a government
servant may withdraw his resignation by
making a request in writing to the
appointing authority before its acceptance.

13. Reliance has also been placed by
the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner on the judgment rendered by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Lalit
Mohan
Upadhyay
Vs.
The
Principal, Kumaun Engineering College,
Dwarhat, District Almora and others,
(2000) 1 UPLBEC 130, judgment and
order dated 12.1.2021 passed by learned
Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition
No.12263 (S/S) of 2020, Pravesh Kumar
Pal Vs. State of U.P. and others and
judgment and order dated 30.5.2016
rendered by this Court in the case of
Dinesh Prasad Chaurasia Vs. Managing
Director and others, 2016 (6) ADJ 550.
Learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
petitioner on the strength of aforesaid
judgments has submitted before this Court
that it is well settled proposition of law that
resignation tendered by an employee can be
withdrawn
at
any
time
before
its
acceptance and in the case of petitioner, she
withdrew her resignation dated 5.2.2021 by
submitting applications dated 5.2.2021 and
11.2.2021
therefore,
the
order
dated
31.3.2021 accepting petitioner's resignation
is absolutely unsustainable in the eyes of
law.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has thus concluded his arguments
and has submitted that order dated
31.3.2021 is liable to be quashed by this
Court and the writ petition filed by the
petitioner deserves to be allowed.

15. On the other hand, learned
counsel appearing for the Respondents
No.2, 4 and 5 has submitted that petitioner
tendered her resignation on 5.2.2021 and
same has been accepted by the District
Basic
Education
Officer,
Etah
on
31.3.2021. It has further been submitted
that so far as applications dated 5.2.2021
and 11.2.2021 submitted by the petitioner
are concerned, the contents of paragraphs
10 to 12 of the writ petition have been
denied in paragraph 7 of the counter
affidavit.

16. Learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents No.2, 4 and 5 has further
submitted that petitioner was not willing to
work in the school in which she was posted
188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therefore, she willingly submitted the
resignation from her post and that has been
duly accepted by the District Basic
Education Officer, Etah vide order dated
31.3.2021,
which
is
perfectly
in
accordance with law and does not call for
any interference by this Court.

17. Learned counsel appearing for
the Respondents No.2, 4 and 5 has thus
concluded
his
arguments
and
has
submitted that writ petition filed by the
petitioner being absolutely misconceived
is liable to be dismissed by this Court.

18. I have considered the rival
arguments advanced by the learned
counsels appearing for the parties and I
find that petitioner was appointed on the
post of Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic
School at District Etah on 5.12.2020 and
thereafter, she tendered her resignation
on 5.2.2021. This court finds that
petitioner in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the
writ petition has categorically stated that
she submitted applications on 5.2.2021
and 11.2.2021 to the District Basic
Education Officer, Etah whereby she
withdrew her resignation. The application
dated 5.2.2021 was given in the office of
District Basic Education Officer, Etah
and it bears endorsement of receipt by
some official working in the office. The
application dated 11.2.2021 has been sent
through registered post and online postal
tracking report has also been annexed to
show that the said application has been
delivered in the office of District Basic
Education Officer, Etah. Respondent
No.4 has filed counter affidavit in which
contents of paragraphs 10 to 12 of the
writ petition have been denied and it has
been stated that petitioner has never
submitted any application for cancellation
of her resignation, before 31.3.2021.

19. Petitioner has filed rejoinder
affidavit to the aforesaid counter affidavit
and has reiterated her stand that she
submitted applications on 5.2.2021 and
11.2.2021 whereby she withdrew her
resignation.

20. This court is of the view that once
petitioner in her writ petition has stated that
she has submitted one application on
5.2.2021 and another on 11.2.2021 and has
annexed online postal tracking report to
show that application dated 11.2.2021 has
been delivered in the office of the District
Basic Education Officer, Etah, bald denial
made in the counter affidavit filed by
Respondent No.4 cannot be accepted.

21. This court finds that petitioner
submitted her resignation on 5.2.2021 and
thereafter she has withdrawn the said
resignation by submitting two applications
before the District Basic Education Officer,
Etah, first personally in his office on
5.2.2021
itself
and
second,
through
registered post on 11.2.2021.

22. The Uttar Pradesh Government
Servants Resignation Rules, 2000 have
been framed to deal with the matters of
resignation from service by government
servants. Rules 6 and 7 are relevant for the
purpose of adjudication of the present case
therefore, Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of
2000 are extracted as under:-

"6. Termination of service.-(1)
The services of the said Government
servant shall stand terminated with effect
from the date of issue of order of the
acceptance of his resignation or from such
future date as mentioned therein.

7. Withdrawal of Resignation.-
The Government servant may withdraw his
resignation by making a request in writing
4 All. Poornima Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
189
to the appointing authority only before the
date of termination of his services as
provided in rule 6 of these rules."

23. On conjoint reading of Rules 6
and 7 of the Rules of 2000, this Court is of
the categorical view that resignation
tendered by the government servant can be
withdrawn
at
any
time
before
its
acceptance.

24. The Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Lalit Mohan Upadhyay Vs.
The Principal, Kumaun Engineering
College, Dwarhat, District Almora and
others, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 130 has
categorically held that resignation tendered
by the employee can be withdrawn before
its acceptance by the employer. Relevant
paragraphs of the judgment rendered in the
case of Lalit Mohan Upadhyay (supra) are
extracted as under:-

"5. In our opinion, the Principal
had no authority or jurisdiction to accept
the
petitioner's
resignation
as
the
petitioner's Appointing Authority is the
Board of Governors and hence only the
Board of Governors can accept his
resignation. In fact, the Principal has
recognised this legal position as he
forwarded the papers to the Board, but
there was no acceptance by the Board of
Governors and instead it was the State
Government
which
accepted
the
resignation on 17.1.1994 i.e.. long after the
petitioner had withdrawn his resignation.

6. In Union of India v. Copal
Chand Mishra. AIR 1978 SC 694. it has
been
held
that
resignation
can
be
withdrawn at any time before it becomes
effective. In the case of employees for
whom
acceptance
of
resignation
is
necessary,
obviously
the
resignation
becomes effective only when it is accepted.
Similarly in M/s. J, K. Cotton Spinning &
Weaving Mills Co. Ltd.. Kanpur v. State of
U. P. and others, AIR 1990 SC 1808, it has
been held that resignation is not complete
until it is accepted by the proper authority.
The same view has been taken in several
other decisions. In the present case, since
the petitioner's resignation was withdrawn
before it was accepted, hence in our
opinion the withdrawal of the resignation
was
valid
and
acceptance
of
the
resignation was illegal.

7. Hence we set aside the
Impugned
order
dated
27.1.1994
(Annexure-22 to the writ petition) and hold
that the petitioner valldly withdrew his
resignation.
The
petitioner
will
be
reinstated in service within six weeks from
the date of production of a certified copy of
this order before the authority concerned
and shall be treated in continuous service
as if his service had never come to an end.
He will get seniority and all consequential
benefits and also arrears within three
months from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order. No order as to
costs."

25. This Court vide order dated
12.1.2021
passed
in
Writ
Petition
No.12263 (S/S) of 2020, Pravesh Kumar
Pal Vs. State of U.P. and others, has held
in the following terms:-

"After hearing learned counsel
for the parties, it is found that the petitioner
had
withdrawn
his
resignation
on
3.10.2018 prior to the passing of the
impugned order dated 9.10.2018, which is
not in dispute in the counter affidavit filed
on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 to 4. The
Rule 7 of the Rules 2000 is very clear that
the
application
for
withdrawal
of
resignation is to be prior to the acceptance
of the resignation. In the present case the
190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
resignation was accepted by the impugned
order dated 9.10.2018 and the application
was preferred
by
the petitioner
on
3.10.2018.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents is not in a position to dispute
the legal provision i.e. Rule 7 of the Rules
2000 and its applicability in the present
case. The arguments raised by the learned
counsel for the respondents that the
knowledge
of
the
application
for
withdrawal of the resignation submitted by
the petitioner is only after the passing of
the impugned order. At the same time in the
counter affidavit it is not disputed that the
petitioner had made an application for
withdrawal of the resignation on 3.10.2018
and the office had taken time to place the
same before the Competent Authority i.e.
Respondent No.2. However, the fact is that
the resignation was withdrawn before its
acceptance. The petitioner would not be
responsible for delay on the part of the
office for placing it before Respondent No.2
late. The case of the petitioner is covered
by the judgement of this Court dated
31.08.2017 passed in Writ-A No.- 47852 of
2000 (Tanweer Alam vs. U.P. Cooperative
Spinning Mills Fed. Ltd & Others) (Supra).
"

26. This court has considered the
issue of withdrawal of resignation before
its acceptance in the case of Dinesh Prasad
Chaurasia Vs. Managing Director and
others, 2016 (6) ADJ 550 and has held that
resignation tendered by an employee can be
withdrawn
at
any
time
before
its
acceptance. Relevant paragraphs of the
judgment rendered in the case of Dinesh
Prasad Chaurasia (supra) are extracted as
under:-

10. So far as legal proposition
with
regard
to
resignation
and
its
acceptance are concerned, the same is
settled. Clause 23 of the U.P. Forest
Corporation General Service Regulation,
1985, which has been extracted above,
provides that resignation will not become
effective till it is accepted by the competent
authority. The resignation submitted by
petitioner on 28.10.1986 remained on
paper, and was not accepted till it was
withdrawn on 28.2.1996. It is not in dispute
that letter dated 28.2.1996 was duly served.
Once the resignation was withdrawn by
petitioner prior to its acceptance by the
competent authority, it was not open for the
respondents to have accepted the same,
vide order impugned dated 30th December,
1998. This is particularly so, as the offer on
part of petitioner to sever the contract of
employment was not subsisting on the date
when it was accepted. The acceptance of
resignation, therefore, was incompetent.
Even otherwise, law is settled that
resignation can be accepted, so long as it is
not withdrawn. The observation made by
the Apex Court in para-22 of Raj Narain
(supra) reads as under:-

"22. For the reasons mentioned
above, we think that the learned judge was
not justified in striking out Issue No. 1. On
the other hand. he should have reframed
that issue, as mentioned earlier. Before
leaving- this question, it is necessary to
mention one other fact. Yashpal Kapur
appears to have tendered his resignation to
the office he was holding on January 13,
1971. The certified copy of the notification
produced
shows
that
the
President
accepted his resignation on the 25th of
January '71 and the same was gazetted on
February 6, 1971. The order of the
President shows that he accepted Yashpal
Kapur's resignation with effect from
January 14, 1971. The learned trial judge
without examining the true effect of the
President's order has abruptly come to the
4 All. Poornima Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
191
conclusion
that
Yashpal
Kapur's
resignation became effective as from
January 14, 1971. This conclusion, in our
opinion, requires re examination. It is
necessary
to
examine
whether
a
government servant's resignation can be
accepted with effect from an earlier date.
At any rate whether such an acceptance
has any validity in considering a corrupt
practice under S. 123(7). If such a course is
permissible, it might enable the government
to defeat the mandate of S. 123(7). The
question as to when a government servant's
resignation becomes effective came up for
consideration by this Court in Raj Kumar
v. Union of India(1). Therein this Court
ruled that when a public servant has invited
by
his
letter
of
resignation
the
determination of his employment, his
service normally stands terminated from
the date on which the letter of resignation
is accepted by the appropriate authority
and, in the absence of any law or statutory
rule governing the conditions of his service,
to the contrary, it will not be open to the
public servant to withdraw his resignation
after it is accepted by the appropriate
authority. Hence the question as to when
Yashpal
Kapur's
resignation
became
effective will have to be examined with
reference to his conditions of service. This
examination having nor been done, the
conclusion of the learned trial judge that it
became effective on January 14, 1971, has
to be ignored."

11. Reliance has also been placed
upon a judgment of the Apex Court in
Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India and
another, reported in AIR 1987 SC 2354.
Paras-10 to 13 of the judgment, which are
relevant for the purpose, are reproduced:-

"10. This question arose in the
case of one Shri Satish Chandra, then a
Judge in the High Court of Allahabad in
Union of India v. Shri Gopal Chandra
Misra and others, [1978] 3 S.C.R. 12.
There the second respondent Shri Satish
Chandra wrote to the President of India, on
May 7, 1977, intimating his resignation
from the office of Judge of the Allahabad
High Court, with effect from 1st of August,
1977. On July 15, 1977, he again wrote to
the
President,
revoking
his
earlier
communication, and commenced deciding
matters in Court from July 16, 1977. On 1st
of August, 1977 the first respondent Shri
Misra, an advocate of the said High Court
filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution
contending
that
the
resignation of Shri Satish Chandra having
been duly communicated to the President of
India in accordance with Article 217(1)
Proviso (a) of the Constitution was final
and irrevocable, and that the continuance
of said Shri Satish Chandra as a Judge of
the High Court there- after, was an
usurpation of public office. The High Court
allowed the petition holding that Shri
Satish Chandra was not competent to
revoke his resignation letter. On appeal
this Court held that the resigning office
necessarily involved relinquishment of the
office
which
implied
cessation
or
termination of, or cutting as under from the
office. A complete and effective act of
resigning office is one which severs the link
of the resigner with his office and
terminates its tenure. In the context of
Article 217(1) this assumes the character of
a decisive test, because the expression
"resign his office" occurs in a proviso
which excepts or qualifies the substantive
clause fixing the office tenure of a judge
upto the age of 62 years. It was further
reiterated that in the absence of a legal,
contractual or constitutional bar, an
intimation
in
writing
sent
to
the
appropriate authority by an incumbent, of
his intention or proposal to resign his
office/post from a future specified date, can
192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 employment. This general rule equally
applies to Government servants and
constitutional functionaries, this Court
reiterated. The other peculiar essence of
Article 2 17 which was discussed need not
detain us in the facts of this case. On the
principle of general law the offer to
relinquishment could have been withdrawn
by the appellant before the date it became
effective if sub-rule (4) of Rule 48-A was
not there.

11. In Air India etc. etc. v.
Nergesh Meerza & Ors. etc. etc., [1982] 1
S.C.R. 438, there the Court struck down
certain provisions of Air India Employees
Service Regulations. We are not concerned
with the actual controversy. But the Court
reiterated that there should not be
arbitrariness and hostile discrimination in
Government's approach to its employees.
On behalf of the respondent it was
submitted that a Government servant was
not entitled to demand as of right,
permission to withdraw the letter of
voluntary retirement, it could only be given
as a matter of grace. Our attention was
also drawn to the observations of this
Court in Raj Kumar v. Union of India,
[1968] 3 S.C.R. 857. There the Court
reiterated that till the resignation was
accepted by the appropriate authority in
consonance with the rules governing the
acceptance, the public servant concerned
has locus poenitentiae but not thereafter.
Undue delay in intimating to the public
servant concerned the action taken on the
letter of resignation may justify an
inference that resignation had not been
accepted. But in the facts of the instant case
the resignation from the Government
servant was to take effect at a subsequent
date prospectively and the withdrawal was
long before that date. Therefore, the
appellant, in our opinion, had locus. As
mentioned hereinbefore the main question
was whether the sub-rule (4) of Rule 48-A
was valid and if so whether the power
exercised under the sub-rule (4) of Rule 48A was proper. In the view we have taken it
is not necessary, in our opinion, to decide
whether subrule (4) of Rule 48-A was valid
or not. It may be a salutary requirement
that a Government servant cannot with-
draw a letter of resignation or of voluntary
retirement at his sweet will and put the
Government into difficulties by writing
letters of resignation or retirement and
withdrawing the same immediately without
rhyme or reasons. Therefore, for the
purpose of appeal we do not propose to
consider the question whether sub-rule (4)
of Rule 48-A of the Pension Rules is valid
or not. If properly exercised the power of
the government may be a salutary rule.
Approval, however, is not ipse dixit of the
approving
authority.
The
approving
authority who has the statutory authority
must act reasonably and rationally. The
only reason put forward here is that the
appellant had not indicated his reasons for
withdrawal. This, in our opinion, was
sufficiently indicated that he was prevailed
upon by his friends and the appellant had a
second look at the matter. This is not an
unreasonable
reason.
The
guidelines
indicated are as follows:

"(2) A question has been raised
whether a Government servant who has
given to the appropriate authority notice of
retirement under the para 2(2) above has
any right subsequently (but during the
currency of the notice) to withdraw the
same and return to duty. The question has
been
considered
carefully
and
the
conclusion reached is that the Government
servant has no such right. There would,
however, be no objection to permission
4 All. Poornima Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
193
being given to such a Government servant,
on consideration of the circumstances of
his case to withdraw the notice given by
him, but ordinarily such permission should
not be granted unless he is in a position to
show that there has been a material
change
in
the
circumstances
in
consideration of which the notice was
originally given.

Where the notice of retirement
has been served by Government on the
Government servant, it may be withdrawn
if so desired for adequate reasons,
provided
the
Government
servant
concerned is agreeable."

12. In this case the guidelines
are that ordinarily permission should not
be granted unless the Officer concerned is
in a position to show that there has been a
material change in the circumstances in
consideration of which the notice was
originally given. In the facts of the instant
case such indication has been given. The
appellant has stated that on the persistent
and personal requests of the staff members
he had dropped the idea of seeking
voluntary retirement. We do not see how
this could not be a good and valid reason.
It is true that he was resigning and in the
notice for resignation he had not given
any reason except to state that he sought
voluntary retirement. We see nothing
wrong in this. In the modern age we
should not put embargo upon people's
choice or freedom. If, however, the
administration had made arrangements
acting on his resignation or letter of
retirement
to
make
other
employee
available for his job, that would be another
matter but the appellant's offer to retire
and withdrawal of the same happened in so
quick succession that it cannot be said that
any administrative set up or management
was affected. The administration has now
taken a long time by its own attitude to
communicate the matter. For this purpose
the respondent is to blame and not the
appellant.

13. We hold, therefore, that there
was no valid reason for withholding the
permission, by the respondent. We hold
further that there has been compliance with
the guidelines because the appellant has
indicated that there was a change in the
circumstances, namely, the persistent and
personal requests from the staff members
and relations which changed his attitude
towards continuing in Government service
and induced the appellant to withdraw the
notice. In the modern and uncertain age it
is very difficult to arrange one's future with
any amount of certainty, a certain amount
of flexibility is required, and if such
flexibility does not jeopardize Government
or administration, administration should be
graceful
enough
to
respond
and
acknowledge the flexibility of human mind
and attitude and allow the appellant to
withdraw his letter of retirement in the
facts and circumstances of this case. Much
complications which had arisen could have
been thus avoided by such graceful
attitude. The court cannot but condemn
circuitous
ways
"to
ease
out"
uncomfortable employees. As a model
employer the government must conduct
itself with high probity and candour with its
employees."

12.
In
Power
Finance
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Parmod Kumar
Bhatia, reported in 1997 (4) SCC 280,
following observations have been made in
paragraph-7:-

"7. It is now settled legal position
that unless the employee is relieved of the
duty, after acceptance of the offer of
voluntary retirement or resignation, jural
relationship of the employee and the
employer does not come to an end. since
the
order
accepting
the
voluntary
194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
retirement was a conditional one, the
conditions ought to have been complied
with. Before the conditions could be
complied with, the appellant withdrew the
scheme. consequently, the order accepting
voluntary retirement did not become
effective. Thereby no vested right has been
created in favour of the respondent. The
High court, therefore, was not right in
holding that the respondent has acquired a
vested right and, therefore, the appellant
has no right to withdraw the scheme
subsequently."

13. A Constitution Bench in
Union of India Vs. Gopal Chandra Misra
and others, reported in AIR 1978 SC 694,
has been pleased to make following
observations:-

"It will be repetition that the
general principle is that in the absence of a
legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a
'prospective' resignation can be withdrawn
at any time before it becomes effective, and
it becomes effective when it operates to
terminate the employment or the office-
tenure of the resignor......... If he chooses to
resign from a future date, the act of
resigning office is not complete because it
does not terminate his tenure before such
date and the Judge can, at any time before
arrival of prospective date on which it was
intended to be effective, withdraw it,
because the Constitution does not bar such
withdrawal."

14. In view of the settled legal
position, as well as considering the fact
that in terms of applicable service rules,
resignation was to become effective only
from the date of its acceptance by the
competent authority, the decision taken by
the respondents to accept resignation from
the date of its tendering, after it had been
withdrawn, is illegal and arbitrary. The
order impugned, consequently, cannot be
sustained.

15.
Having
reached
the
conclusion aforesaid, the next question,
which arises for consideration, is as to
what relief is liable to be granted to the
petitioner. Law by now is well settled that
back wages cannot be granted, as a matter
of routine. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed various decisions on
this aspect of the matter. In Shambhu
Murari Sinha Vs. Project and Development
India and another, reported in 2000 (86)
FLR 206, it has been observed that in such
circumstances, the employee concerned
would be entitled to continue with all
consequential benefits. Para-4 of the
judgment is reproduced:-

"4. From the facts stated above, it
would be seen that though the option of
voluntary retirement exercised by the
appellant by his letter dated 18.10.1995
was
accepted
by
the
respondentmanagement
by
their
letter
dated
30.7.1997, the appellant was not relieved
from service and he was allowed to
continue in service till 26.9.1997, which,
for all practical purposes, would be the
"effective date" as it was on this date that
he was relieved from service. In the
meantime, as pointed out above, the
appellant had already withdrawn the offer
of voluntary retirement vide his letter dated
7.8.1997. The question which, therefore,
arises in this appeal is whether it is open to
a person having exercised option of
voluntary retirement to withdraw the said
offer after its acceptance but before it is
made effective. The question is squarely
answered by the three decisions, namely,
Balram Gupta vs. Union of India & Anr.
1987 (Supp.) SCC 228; J.N. Srivastava vs.
Union of India & Anr. (1998) 9 SCC 559
and Power Finance Corporation Ltd. vs.
Pramod Kumar Bhatia (1997) 4 SCC 280,
in which it was held that the resignation, in
spite of its acceptance, can be withdrawn
4 All. Poornima Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
195
before the "effective date". That being so,
the appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment of the High Court is set aside
with the direction that the appellant shall
be allowed to continue in service with all
consequential
benefits.
There
will,
however, be no order as to costs."

16.
In
Managing
Director,
Orissa
State
Handloom
Weavers'
Cooperative
Society
Ltd.
Vs.
Satyanarayan
Pattnaik
and
another,
reported in 2014 (3) SCC 218, following
observations have been made in para-4 of
the judgment, awarding 20@ of back
wages:-

"4. Keeping the question of law
open, looking at the peculiar facts of the
case, we feel that the appeal deserves to
be allowed to a limited extent by
directing the appellant employer to pay
only 20% of the back wages from the date
when the respondent ceased to discharge
his duties till the date he is reinstated in
service.
The
respondent
shall
be
reinstated in service within two weeks
from today."

17. Per contra, learned counsel
for the respondent Corporation submits
that in the facts of the present case, the
petitioner has virtually abandoned the
services, and acceptance of resignation
was a mere formality, and even if, the
order of acceptance is held to be illegal,
petitioner would not be entitled to any
back wages.

18. From the materials, which
have been brought on record, this Court
finds that there was an intentional act on
part of the petitioner not to perform his
duties from 1985 onwards. Except for
sending of certain letters, there was no
serious intent on part of petitioner to
actually work. It is only after 11 years that
the resignation was withdrawn.