MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Resignation can be withdrawn before its acceptance: Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement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 The Court ruled that the appellant, S.D. Manohara, had successfully withdrawn his resignation before its acceptance by the employer.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