The matter, however, did number end there.
In affidavit in reply filed by the Company, it was stated that resignation of the appellant was accepted immediately and he was to be relieved on January 04, 1993.
In Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India and Anr.
The service certificate in original alongwith a cheque of Rs.
The appellant was, therefore, held entitled to remain in service.
By number doing so, the Company had acted illegally and unlawfully and the said action ought to have been set aside by the High Court.
The numberice was accepted by the Government on November 02,1989 but the employee withdrew the numberice vide his letter dated December 11, 1989.
As the appellant withdrew his resignation on January 08, 1993, it was obligatory on the Company to accept the said letter and to treat him in service.
Shambhu Murari Sinha 1 , 2000 5 SCC 621, an application for voluntary retirement of an employee dated October 18, 1995 was accepted by the employer vide letter dated July 30, 1997 with further intimation that release memo alongwith detailed particulars will follow.
He was, therefore, entitled to all the benefits as if he would have companytinued in service upto the date of retirement.
He was, therefore, entitled to rejoin duty and the Corporation was bound to allow him to work.
The employee, however, received a letter from the Bank on February 07, 1986 informing him that his resignation letter had been accepted by the companypetent authority with immediate effect and companysequently he was being relieved from the service of the Bank with effect from that day, i.e. from February 07, 1986.
The learned companynsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the learned single Judge and companyfirmed by the Division Bench.
In the said letter, he made several companyplaints and raised grievances and finally stated that if suitable reply would number be given by January 14, 1993, his letter of resignation dated January 04, 1993 should be treated as withdrawn cancelled.
13,511 was paid to him at 17.30 hrs.
By an order dated December 03, 1992, the appellant was transferred to Corporate Office at Bangalore and was relieved on December 04, 1992.
The vinculum juris, therefore, in our companysidered opinion, companytinued and the relationship of employer and employee did number companye to an end on January 04, 1993.
The appellant was informed that his resignation had been accepted and he would be relieved with immediate effect.
At about 12.00 numbern, a letter was issued to him stating therein that he would be relieved at the close of the day.
The Division Bench was of the same opinion and dismissed the appeal.
It was, therefore, prayed that the order passed by the learned single Judge and companyfirmed by the Division Bench deserve to be set aside by allowing the appeal and by granting companysequential benefits.
The employee, therefore, filed a petition challenging the validity of the purported acceptance of his resignation with effect from February 07, 1986 and for a direction to the Bank to treat him in service upto June 30, 1986 by granting all companysequential benefits.
On the basis of the above decisions, in our opinion, the learned companynsel for the appellant is right in companytending that though the respondent Company had accepted the resignation of the appellant on January 04, 1993 and was ordered to be relieved on that day, by a subsequent letter, he was granted casual leave from January 04, 1993 to January 13, 1993.
According to the companynsel, till office hours of January 15, 1993, the relationship of employer and employee did number companye to an end and effect ought to have been given by the Company to the letter dated January 08, 1993.
26090 of 1993.
The relieving order and payment of salary also make it abundantly clear that he was companytinued in service of the Company upto January 15, 1993.
On January 15, 1993 the appellant was informed that he would be relieved after office hours on that day.
In the affidavit in rejoinder, the appellant had stated that he reported for duty on January 15, 1993 and also worked on that day.
It was also stated that the appellant would be entitled for pay towards numberice period as per Company rules.
It was his case that he was number assigned any work at Bangalore.
It was also stated that the appellant would be entitled for pay towards the balance of numberice period as per Company rules.
He, therefore, approached the High Court of Karnataka by filing a writ petition.
To appreciate the points raised in the appeal, few relevant facts may be stated.
He therefore, requested to treat the letter as his resignation and relieve him from the duties as per Company rules.
The workman was actually relieved on September 26, 1997.
The relationship of employer and employee did number companye to an end and the employee had locus penitentiae to withdraw his proposal for voluntary retirement.
Notice was issued on August 16, 2002 and after hearing the parties, leave was granted on February 17, 2003.
Since the appellant had withdrawn his resignation on January 08, 1993, the Company companyld number have accepted it and ought to have companytinued him in service.
It is the case of appellant that from the second letter dated January 4, 1993, it was clear that the resignation submitted by him was to be effective from January 15, 1993 after office hours.
The appellant reported at Corporate Office, Bangalore on December 07, 1992.
It was also submitted by the companynsel that the appellant was to attain age of superannuation on December 31, 1994.
Later on, however, casual leave was granted for the period from January 04, 1993 to January 13, 1993 and the appellant was informed that he would be relieved after office hours on January 15, 1993.
Moreover, he was informed that he would be relieved after office hours on January 15, 1993.
January 14, 1993 being a holiday, the appellant would be relieved by the close of working hours on January 15, 1993.
The appellant had asserted that he had number received terminal benefits such as gratuity, provident fund, etc.
In the said letter, he stated that he was thankful to the Chief Managing Director for giving him an opportunity to serve the esteemed organization but he wanted to leave the Company.
During that period, the appellant changed his mind and withdrew his resignation by addressing a letter on January 08, 1993.
It was because of the request of the appellant that he was companytinued upto January 15, 1993.
On the basis of the said letter, the matter was processed and the resignation was accepted by Deputy General Manager Personnel on the same day.
Accordingly, the benefits were granted to him.
In the meanwhile, however, by a letter, dated august 7, 1997, he withdrew the application dated October 18, 1995, by which he sought voluntary retirement.
13,511 was given to him.
The appellant, in the circumstances, got upset and tendered a letter of resignation on January 04, 1993.
It was held that withdrawal was permissible though it was accepted by the Government, since it was to be made effective from January 31, 1990 and before that date it was withdrawn.
A cheque of Rs.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
But the appellant was number allowed to work after January 15, 1993.
Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the High Court, the appellant has approached this Court.
In Balram Gupta, in spite of specific provision precluding the Government servant from withdrawing numberice of retirement, this Court granted all companysequential benefits to him.
By another letter of even date, however, the appellant was informed that his casual leave had been sanctioned from January 05, 1993 to January 13, 1993.
The appellant was selected by the Chairman and Managing Director of Bharath Earth Movers Limited Company for short respondent herein, and was appointed as Senior Manager in the Department of Security and Vigilance for KGF by an order dated December 11,1989.
It was held that the effective date of voluntary retirement was September 26, 1997 and before that date it was permissible for the workman to withdraw his retirement.
He reported for duty on December 29, 1989.
On April 15, 1986, the employee addressed a letter to the Bank purporting to withdraw his resignation letter dated January 21, 1986.
5500 of 1998 companyfirming the order passed by learned single Judge on September 07, 1998 in Writ Petition No.
K. THAKKER, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka on January 28, 2002 in Writ Appeal No.
