Waqf Tribunal Has Power To Order Interrogatories Under Order 9 Rule 1 CPC: Kerala High Court Section 25 HMA | Appellate Court Cannot Adjudicate Claim For Permanent Alimony If Not Raised Before Trial Court: Chhattisgarh High Court Divorce | Unsubstantiated Allegations Of Illicit Relationship Against Spouse Constitute Mental Cruelty: Chhattisgarh High Court Land Acquisition Act | Compensation Must Be Based On Highest Bona Fide Sale Exemplar; Averaging Of Prices Is Legally Impermissible: Himachal Pradesh High Court Maintenance Tribunals Cannot Invoke Section 23 Senior Citizen Act To Cancel Settlement Deeds Lacking Express Maintenance Conditions: Kerala High Court JJ Act & RTE Act | Children’s Courts Must Integrate Education Into Bail Conditions And Rehabilitation Plans: Allahabad High Court Section 173(8) CrPC | Further Investigation Cannot Be A Mechanical Exercise; Investigating Agency Must Not Act As A 'Post Office' For Complainant: Madhya Pradesh High Court MACT | Courts Must Award 'Just And Fair' Compensation Regardless Of The Amount Specifically Claimed By The Petitioner: High Court Arbitrator Cannot Grant Pendente Lite Interest Where Contract Expressly Bars It: Bombay High Court Right To Travel | Bank Cannot Impose LOC Merely Because Debtor Defaulted In Absence Of Fraud: Madras High Court Order 14 CPC | Court Cannot Grant Relief On Issue Not Settled Or Tried Between Defendants: Kerala High Court Arbitration Fee Payable To Public Officials Must Be Deposited In Parent Organization’s Account: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Reopen Issues Confirmed By Appellate Court Under The Guise Of Section 151 CPC: Calcutta High Court Section 340 CrPC | Making False Averments In Pleadings Can Attract Perjury Proceedings Even If Opponent Suffers No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Section 295A IPC | Commercial Sale Of Textile Material With Religious Motifs Without Malicious Intent Does Not Constitute Offence: Gujarat High Court University's Failure To Adhere To Academic Calendar Justifies Granting Final Opportunity To Clear BDS Subjects Beyond Eight-Year Window: Andhra Pradesh High Court Pendency Of Insolvency Proceedings Does Not Absolve Accused From Criminal Liability Under Section 138 NI Act: Madras High Court Administrator Cannot Terminate Employees Or Cancel Selection Process Without Formal Inquiry: Kerala High Court Rules Section 125 CrPC | Suppression Of Assets By Wife Does Not Absolve Husband’s Statutory Liability To Maintain; High Court Orders De Novo Trial Separate Charitable Trusts Running Hospital From Same Building Can Be Clubbed For EPF Assessment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Temple Of Justice' In Peril: Rajasthan High Court Raps State Over "Sub-Standard" Construction, Bars Any Court From Protecting Erring Officials Section 13(1)(i-b) Hindu Marriage Act | Divorce Petition Filed Before Completion Of Two-Year Statutory Desertion Period Is Not Maintainable: Patna High Court Acts Of Undressing And Attempting Penile-Vaginal Insertion Constitute 'Attempt To Rape' And Not Mere Preparation: Uttarakhand High Court UAPA | Trial Delay Simpliciter Cannot Overrule Statutory Embargo Under Section 43D(5) For Serious Offences: Punjab & Haryana High Court SC/ST (POA) Act | Statutory Appeal Must Be Preferred Against Bail Rejection Order, Criminal Petition Not Maintainable: Telangana High Court Contempt Jurisdiction | Non-Compliance Of Writ Court Order Cannot Be Alleged If Petitioner Fails To Meet Conditions Precedent Stipulated By Supreme Court: Uttarakhand High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Changing Nature Of Suit From Partition To Declaration Based On Will Cannot Be Allowed At Evidence Stage: Punjab & Haryana High Court Absence Of Witness Identification In POCSO Trial And Unexplained Delay In FIR Filing Fatal To Prosecution Case: Supreme Court Non-Examination Of Material Witness Despite Pivotality In Chain Of Events Invites Adverse Inference Against Prosecution: Supreme Court

Resignation can be withdrawn before its acceptance: Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement

14 September 2024 4:56 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


On September 13, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a pivotal ruling in S.D. Manohara v. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Ors., addressing a protracted service dispute. The Court ruled that the appellant, S.D. Manohara, had successfully withdrawn his resignation before its acceptance by the employer. This judgment reaffirms the established legal principle that an employee can withdraw their resignation before it is formally accepted by the employer.

S.D. Manohara had been an employee of the Konkan Railway Corporation since 1990. After 13 years of service, he submitted a resignation letter on December 5, 2013, specifying it would become effective after one month. However, amidst ongoing discussions and correspondence, Manohara sought to retract his resignation. The primary issue in this case was whether the resignation was withdrawn before being accepted by the employer.

The employer contended that the resignation was accepted on April 7, 2014, and that Manohara's subsequent withdrawal request on May 26, 2014, came too late. In contrast, Manohara argued that the acceptance was never communicated to him, and he had continued to work during this disputed period.

The central legal issue revolved around the established doctrine that a resignation can be retracted before it is officially accepted by the employer. Relevant precedents include cases such as Srikantha S.M. v. Bharath Earth Movers Limited and Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra. This case required the Court to delve into the exact timeline of events to determine whether Manohara’s withdrawal was valid.

The appellant argued that he had continued his employment without any formal communication of acceptance, citing his active service on May 19, 2014, and directives received from the employer to report to duty. In contrast, the respondent employer maintained that the resignation had been accepted effective April 7, 2014, with a formal internal communication dated April 15, 2014.

The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the evidence, including letters and communications exchanged between the parties. The Court observed that the letter dated April 15, 2014, was an internal memo and there was no concrete proof that it had been served to Manohara. Notably, the Court acknowledged that the appellant was directed to report for duty on May 10, 2014, suggesting that the resignation had not yet been finalized.

Furthermore, the Court recognized the appellant's consistent efforts to withdraw his resignation and his continuous engagement with the respondent employer. The justices were persuaded by the fact that Manohara was actively reporting to duty on May 19, 2014, and the communications from his wife on April 17, 2014, and May 20, 2014, requesting the non-acceptance of his resignation.

In delivering the judgment, the Court upheld the principle that an employee's resignation can be withdrawn before acceptance. It underscored that the appellant’s resignation was withdrawn before any formal acceptance, thereby rendering the appellant's withdrawal effective.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of S.D. Manohara, setting aside the decision of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. The Court ordered his reinstatement into service and directed that he should receive 50% of the salary for the period he was not in service, to be counted towards pensionary benefits. This decision reaffirms the legal principle that resignation withdrawal before acceptance is valid and enforceable, protecting employees' rights in such service disputes.

Date of Decision: September 13, 2024

S.D. Manohara v. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Ors.​.

Latest Legal News