Supreme Court Modifies Directive On Sanitary Napkins In Schools, Mandates Use Of Sustainable Biodegradable And Compostable Materials Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit | Courts Must Invoke Equitable Principles To Exempt E-Filing Delays Caused By System Failures: Supreme Court Section 47 & 48 BNSS | Substantial Compliance With Statutory Safeguards Regarding Grounds Of Arrest Sufficient To Sustain Custody: Allahabad High Court Order I Rule 10 CPC | Third Parties Claiming Independent Title Cannot Be Impleaded In Specific Performance Suits Against Plaintiff's Wish: Andhra Pradesh High Court Licensing Authority Cannot Refuse Orchestra Licence On Vague Grounds Of 'Law And Order' Without Objective Material: Bombay High Court Order Of Evacuation Under Sec 37A WB Fire Services Act Must Reflect Application Of Mind To Petitioner’s Reply: Calcutta High Court Suppression Of Criminal Antecedents | Employer Must Apply Mind To Nature Of Offence And Age Of Candidate Before Cancelling Candidature: Allahabad High Court Trial Court Cannot Pass Ex Parte Decree As If It Were Contested Merits Without Notice To Party Upon Counsel’s Withdrawal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suit For Partition Not Maintainable Without Seeking Relief Of Possession If Plaintiff Is Not In Physical Or Constructive Possession: Delhi High Court Section 482 CrPC | High Court Can Quash Matrimonial FIRs Based On Amicable Settlement To Prevent Abuse Of Process: Gujarat High Court Mere Acquittal In Criminal Case Does Not Establish Malicious Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reiterates Essential Ingredients Under Tort Law Revenue Records Do Not Confer Title; Authorities Must Record Registered Deeds Promptly To Prevent Fraudulent Transfers: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 24 CPC | Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings Is Convenience Of Wife: Orissa High Court Section 318 BNS | FIR Quashed As Court Finds Criminal Prosecution Being Used To Settle A Purely Civil Commercial Dispute: J&K High Court Principles Of Res Judicata And Delay Bar State From Reopening Decades-Old Land Tribunal Orders: Karnataka High Court Trial Court Has Discretion To Refuse Summoning Of Defence Witnesses If Application Is Vexatious Or Aimed At Delay: Kerala High Court Co-Owner’s Exclusive Possession And Non-Participation In Profits For Decades Can Raise Presumption Of Ouster: Madras High Court Competition Commission Of India Has Jurisdiction To Probe Anti-Competitive Conduct In Liquor Trade Despite State Regulatory Framework: Madhya Pradesh High Court Plaintiff Cannot Seek Title Declaration Without Proving Ownership And Precise Identity Of Disputed Property: Punjab And Haryana High Court Settlement Deed Excluding Legal Heirs From Intestate Succession Cannot Override Statutory Inheritance Rights: Madras High 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