{"id":315137,"date":"2024-02-23T16:30:58","date_gmt":"2024-02-23T11:00:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=315137"},"modified":"2024-02-23T16:59:30","modified_gmt":"2024-02-23T11:29:30","slug":"prospective-resignation-can-be-withdrawn-any-time-before-becomes-effective-supreme-court-reiterates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/23\/prospective-resignation-can-be-withdrawn-any-time-before-becomes-effective-supreme-court-reiterates\/","title":{"rendered":"Can prospective resignation be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective? Supreme Court answers"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In an appeal against the judgment passed by Bombay High Court, whereby the Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and confirmed the order passed by the Single Judge, wherein the challenge was made by the appellant to the rejection of withdrawal of her prospective resignation, prior to the effective date, and the rejection of her prayer for rejoining the duties. the division bench of JK Maheshwari*<\/span> and KV Viswanathan, JJ. while setting aside the impugned orders, reiterated that 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the office or post and in the absence of any legal contractual or constitutional bar, a prospective resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective.<\/p>\n

Further, the Court directed the Trust to regularize the service period of the appellant from 24-09-2003 till the date of joining the duty at the new Institution as Principal on 01-10-2007. Thus, she would be entitled to her pension and other retiral benefits, including the arrears of pension. The Court directed that the said exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date of this judgment, and on failure to pay retiral benefits\/pension and arrears within the time as specified, the appellant shall be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/p>\n

Before the Mumbai University and College Tribunal (‘College Tribunal’), the appellant filed an appeal to quash the order passed by Marwadi Sammelan Trust (‘Trust’) rejecting her request for withdrawal of resignation. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed by the appellant against the order passed by College Tribunal the before the Bombay High Court, wherein the College Tribunal opined that since it was not an order of dismissal, removal or termination of service, therefore, the appeal was not maintainable under Section 59(1)<\/a> of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994<\/a> (“1994 Act”) and on such, the question of limitation under Section 59(2) does not arise. Further, it held in law that the prospective resignation can be withdrawn before the expiry of the intended date. However, on facts, it was held that there was an implied understanding between the parties’ prohibiting withdrawal of resignation. Hence, according to the College Tribunal, the present case fell within the exception in the case of The Rev. Oswald Joseph Reichel<\/span> v The Right Rev. John Fielder (1889)<\/span>, House of Lords, XIV, 249, and hence, the College Tribunal dismissed the appeal.<\/p>\n

Thereafter, the Single Judge of the High Court held that the right to withdraw the prospective resignation can be given up or waived off by the person who holds that right. However, after looking at the conduct of the appellant, it held that the findings recorded by the tribunal on merits did not warrant any interference. The division bench of the High Court upheld the said order. Thus, the appellant filed the present appeal.<\/p>\n

Issues and Analysis:<\/p>\n