Jharkhand High Court
Kumudini Kachhap W/O Jyoti Lakra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 January, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3892 of 2024
----
Kumudini Kachhap W/o Jyoti Lakra, R/o Village Madhuban,
Anandpur, PO PS Lohardaga, District Lohardaga.
... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. the Secretary, Department of Health, Government of
Jharkhand, having Office at Nepal House, Doranda, PO PS
Doranda, District Ranchi.
3. the Director-in-Chief, Department of Health, Government of
Jharkhand, R.C.H. Building, Namkum, PO PS Namkum, District
Ranchi.
4. The Civil Surgeon-Chief Medical Officer, Lohardaga, PO PS
Lohardaga, District Lohardaga.
5. The In-charge Medical Officer, Health Centre, Jagmai PO PS
Bhandra, District Lohardaga.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC (L&C) I
----
ORDER
RESERVED ON 07.01.2025 PRONOUNCED ON 24.01.2025
5/ 24.01.2025 In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a direction to the
respondents to accept her joining by ignoring her resignation letter as the
same was tendered on being pressurized by the then In-charge Medical
Officer, Bhandra. Petitioner has also prayed for payment of salaries from
January 2019 to August 2019.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that before
acceptance of resignation and before communicating such acceptance,
petitioner had withdrawn her resignation. He argued that once the petitioner
had withdrawn her resignation, respondents could not have accepted the said
resignation letter, rather should have accepted petitioner's joining. He argued
that the resignation was not voluntary and the same was because of the
pressure by the In-charge Medical Officer, Bhandra.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State argued that the
petitioner had voluntarily resigned from the services and the withdrawal of
resignation was after her resignation was accepted, thus, this writ petition
needs to be dismissed. Respondents further argued that the petitioner has
secured service by playing fraud. It was found that the petitioner, by
suppressing information, had obtained service. When the respondents
contemplated to take appropriate action, the petitioner had resigned.
4. The issue, which falls for consideration before this Court is in
respect of a dispute involving withdrawal of resignation letter. It is settled
principle of law vide judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.
Mrs. Suman V. Jain versus Marwadi Sammelan [2024 SCC OnLine SC
161]; Air India Express Limited versus Captain Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu
[(2019) 17 SCC 129]; Srikantha S.M. versus Bharath Earth Movers Limited
[(2005) 8 SCC 314]; Balram Gupta versus Union of India [1987 Supp SCC
228]; Union of India versus Gopal Chandra Misra [(1978) 2 SCC 301]; that
a resignation tendered by an employee can be withdrawn at any time prior to
acceptance of the same.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chand Mal Chayal
versus State of Rajasthan reported in (2006) 10 SCC 258 at paragraph 3
thereof has observed as under: -
"3. 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. In the
present case, ... ..."
6. The main question, which falls for consideration in this writ petition
is whether the employee had withdrawn the resignation before its acceptance
by the employer or not. From the documents annexed with the writ petition and
the counter affidavit, I find that the petitioner had submitted her resignation on
17.12.2018. The resignation letter is at Annexure 'E' to the Counter Affidavit. In
the said resignation letter, I find that the petitioner has written that due to
family problem and mental pressure, she is not in a position to work, thus, she
is resigning. In the resignation letter, there is an endorsement dated
21.12.2018 that "resignation is granted". In the resignation letter, there is a
further endorsement to inform the aforesaid acceptance to the petitioner. The
date of such endorsement is 02.01.2019. Annexure 'F' to the Counter Affidavit
is letter dated 02.01.2019 addressed to the Medical Officer, Lohardaga with a
copy to this petitioner intimating acceptance of the resignation. On 03.01.2019,
the petitioner has withdraw her resignation, stating that she was pressurized to
resign by Dr. Mukul Kumar and now she does not want to resign rather wants
to work.
7. From the aforesaid sequence of events, it is clear that the
petitioner's resignation was accepted on 21.12.2018 and the same was
communicated to the petitioner on 02.01.2019. The petitioner had withdrawn
her resignation on 03.01.2019, i.e., after acceptance of the resignation. Thus,
from the documents I find that the resignation of the petitioner was accepted
before the petitioner withdrew the same.
8. Whether the resignation was by coercion or due to pressure by
one Dr. Mukul Kumar or not, is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be
decided in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. In view of what has been held and observed above, since the
resignation was accepted prior to its withdrawal, I am not inclined to entertain
this writ petition. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
AFR
