Bombay High Court
Ligia G. Godinho vs Speaker, Legislative Assembly on 6 August, 1996
Equivalent citations: [1997(75)FLR915], (1998)IIILLJ970BOM
Author: T.K.Chandrasekhara Das
Bench: T.K. Chandrasekhara Das, R.M.S. Khandeparkar
JUDGMENT T.K.Chandrasekhara Das, J.
1. The petitioner was a Stenographer, working under the respondents since September 19, 1982. In 1988, she was promoted to the post of Assistant. In February 1988, the petitioner went on Maternity Leave and a child was born to her on February 24, 1988. The petitioner was on maternity leave till April 30,1988. Due to deformity in the child, on the advice of the Doctor who recommended surgery of the child she had applied for earned leave for the period between May 1, 1988 and June 29, 1988. She had to further seek extension of her earned leave by her letter dated June 27, 1988. But by letter dated July 1, 1988, issued by the Second Respondent, she was called upon to report for duty latest by July 5, 1988. A copy of the said letter is produced as Exhibit 'A'. On receipt of that letter, as there was (sic.) no option left to her for the sake of her child, she expressed her desire to resign from the post with effect from July 1, 1988.
2. It is an admitted case of the respondents that the said letter of resignation has been accepted by the respondents only on July 15, 1988. But in the meantime, the petitioner reconsidered the matter and decided to withdraw her resignation letter. Accordingly, vide letter dated July 7, 1988, she withdrew her resignation and on the same day, it was handed over to the Secretary, Legislature Department. There is also no dispute that the said letter of withdrawal of resignation was received by the respondents on July 7, 1988, much before the respondents are alleged to have accepted the resignation. As she has withdrawn her resignation before the acceptance of the resignation by the respondents, there is no justification on the part of the respondents to not to allow the petitioner to continue in service. It is an elementary principle of law that the resignation is only an offer to put an end to relationship between the employer and the employee and before such an offer is accepted by the employer, the employee is entitled to withdraw it, unless, otherwise, prescribed by rules relating to concerned service. There is no controversy or dispute regarding the factual position that the withdrawal of the resignation has been done by the petitioner before the acceptance of her resignation. Therefore, the conduct of the respondents in forbidding the petitioner from continuing her service is not sustainable in law.
We find in the fact situation that the petitioner was entitled to continue in service.
3. In the result, we partly allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitoner forthwith in the service. However, in the present circumstances of the case, we do not think it is appropriate to order payment of back wages to the petitioner as prayed for because the petitioner was restrained from continuing her services not on account of mala fide exercise of powers of the respondents. It appears that the respondents arc under the impression that once the resignation is received by them, it takes effect forthwith. They seem, to have the impression that the petitioner cannot withdraw the resignation when the resignation is in process of acceptance. We think, on account of such a misconception of law, the respondents did not allow the petitioner to continue in service. In that circumstance, we do not find any reason to order back wages to the petitioner for the period during which she did not actually work. However, the petitioner is entitled to the continuity of her service and other benefits, including fixation of pay with increments upto date. Rule made absolute in the above terms.
Writ petition partly allowed.