Delhi High Court
Aditi Kundu vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 8 March, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: March 08, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 6431/2016
ADITI KUNDU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manish Kumar Srivastava,
Advocate
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY AND
ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Harsh Kishore, Mr. Giriraj
Subramanium and Mr. Simarpal Singh
Sawhney, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Impugned order of 11th September, 2015 (Annexure P-11) accepts
petitioner's resignation from the post of Assistant Professor, University
School of Architecture and Planning (hereinafter referred to as USAP)
w.e.f. 31st July, 2015 and impugned order has been passed on petitioner's
application of 1st July, 2015 vide which she had sought waiver of the
notice period and acceptance of her resignation w.e.f. 31 st July, 2015. It is
the case of petitioner that on 4th August, 2015, vide application (Annexure
P-6), she had withdrawn her resignation and that petitioner's application
seeking withdrawal of resignation was forwarded by the Joint Registrar
(Personnel) to the Dean of USAP vide letter of 4th August, 2015
(Annexure P-8 colly.).
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that acceptance of
petitioner's resignation vide impugned order is per se illegal as the
resignation was withdrawn by petitioner on 4th August, 2015 i.e. before it
was accepted and to submit so, reliance is placed upon Supreme Court's
decision in Balram Gupta v. Union of India and Anr., AIR 1987 SC 2354.
3. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-University submits
that the application seeking withdrawal of resignation was addressed to
the Vice-Chancellor and not to the Dean and therefore, withdrawal of
resignation is of no consequence as petitioner is well aware that the
application for withdrawal of resignation had to be submitted to the Dean
of USAP and it has not been done in the instant case. It is submitted that
in place of petitioner, somebody else has been already employed and that
petitioner was not a confirmed employee and so, it would be inequitable
to direct acceptance of withdrawal of resignation as no good reason for
withdrawal of resignation is forthcoming. So, it is submitted that this
petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. Supreme Court in Chand Mal Chayal v. State of Rajasthan, (2006)
10 SCC 258 has reiterated as under:-
"By now it is a well-settled principle of law that an
incumbent is entitled to withdraw his resignation before the
acceptance. Once his resignation is accepted there is no
jural relationship between the employee and the employer
and the employee cannot claim for withdrawal of the
resignation nor reinstatement in the post."
5. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order (Annexure P-11)
and the material on record, I find that petitioner's resignation has been
accepted by respondent-University without any reference to petitioner's
application for withdrawal of resignation, which renders impugned order
illegal. No doubt, petitioner had addressed the application for withdrawal
of resignation to the Vice-Chancellor instead of submitting it to the Dean
of USAP, but that by itself does not justify non-consideration of the
application for withdrawal of resignation. It is evident from respondent-
University's Communication of 4th August, 2015 (Annexure P-8 colly.)
that petitioner's application for withdrawal of resignation has been
forwarded to the Dean of USAP. There is no application of mind on the
said application for withdrawal of resignation.
6. It is true that petitioner had in the resignation letter requested that
she be relieved on or before 31st July, 2015, but since the request for
withdrawal of resignation had reached the Dean of USAP prior to the
acceptance of resignation, therefore, it ought to have been considered by
respondent-University. Undue delay in intimating the concerned
employee of the action taken on the letter of resignation justifies an
inference that resignation has not been accepted. It can be so said because
petitioner had been paid salary for the month of August, 2015.
7. Respondent-University has failed to act reasonably and rationally
in not taking into consideration the application for withdrawal of
resignation while accepting petitioner's resignation vide impugned order.
It is the right of petitioner to withdraw resignation during the currency of
notice period, but in the instant case, the application for withdrawal of
resignation had come after the notice period which ended on 31st July,
2015. In such a case, though no absolute right accrues to petitioner, but
since respondent-University has taken its own time to communicate the
acceptance of resignation, therefore, impugned order cannot be sustained
and is accordingly quashed. Respondent-University is directed to
consider petitioner's application for withdrawal of resignation in light of
the fact that if in place of petitioner, some other teacher has been
employed, then the employment of said teacher has been on Ad hoc basis
or on regular basis. Respondent-University shall pass speaking order on
petitioner's application for withdrawal of resignation within a period of
six weeks from today and in case it chooses not to accept petitioner's
application for withdrawal of resignation, then a reasoned decision be
taken and it be conveyed to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that
petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.
8. Since the pleadings are silent regarding petitioner's employment
elsewhere during the pendency of this petition, therefore, no case for
grant of any monetary benefits to petitioner is made out, in case
respondent-University chooses to accept petitioner's application for
withdrawal of resignation.
9. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 08, 2018
s
