CHAND MAL CHAYAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(SC)-2006-9-90
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on September 13,2006

CHAND MAL CHAYAL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SAFIQUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2005-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
V VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY VS. ANDHRA BANK [LAWS(APH)-2007-12-60] [REFERRED TO]
C SABABATHY VS. SALEM STEEL PLANT [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-472] [REFERRED TO]
GANGA PRASAD BELWAL VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2012-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
GH ALI SHEIKH VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2009-3-38] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ PAL SINGH SUHAG VS. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. [LAWS(P&H)-2009-9-127] [REFERRED TO]
SAI SANKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2012-8-115] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHANK SHEKHAR SONI VS. REGISTRAR, HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2012-10-42] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. SULTAN PANDITHPORI VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(J&K)-2011-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. KALYAN GANGULY [LAWS(CAL)-2014-9-129] [REFERRED TO]
KUSUM KUMAR MAHANTA VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2013-3-118] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK KAUSHIK VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2017-11-212] [REFERRED TO]
ADITI KUNDU VS. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY AND ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-3-172] [REFERRED TO]
K. SARAVANA VS. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL [LAWS(MAD)-2017-9-132] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DEFENCE SECRETARY [LAWS(PAT)-2011-5-150] [REFERRED TO]
KAVITA KUMARI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2019-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT VS. BHARAT SINGH RAWAT [LAWS(KER)-2020-12-55] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 24.09.2003 passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal (Writ) No.707 of 2002. By the aforesaid order the Division Bench set aside the order dated 17.09.2002 passed by the learned single Judge directing the respondent Government to pass an order within a period of one month to facilitate the re-employment of the writ petitioner (the appellant herein) from 4.11.1992. The learned single Judge further directed that the appellant shall not be entitled to the benefits which he agreed to forego by submitting undertaking dated 22.03.1993.
(2.)The appellant was a Reader/Court Master in the Magistrate Court. He is stated to be member of Scheduled Caste. To contest the election held in 1990 he tendered his resignation on 27.01.1990 which was accepted on 28.01.1990. The appellant was thereafter relieved from the post on 29.01.1990. He in fact filed nomination as a candidate but subsequently withdrew on 2.02.1990. By a petition dated 12.02.1990 addressed to the District Judge he prayed for retaining the post which was rejected by the District Judge. Thereafter, it appears that he filed a writ petition before the High Court which was disposed for conducting an enquiry. An enquiry committee was constituted on the administration side. The committee submitted its report on 26.06.1991. We are not concerned with all these. Suffice it to say that after exchanging various correspondences between the Government and the High Court his request for re-employment was finally rejected by a Government order dated 5.06.1999. Aggrieved thereby he preferred writ petition and the same was disposed of with the direction as noticed above. Aggrieved by the direction of the learned single Judge the State Government filed an appeal registered as Special Appeal (Writ) No. 707/2002 which was allowed by the impugned order. Hence the present appeal.
(3.)By now it is well settled principle of law that an incumbent is entitled to withdraw his resignation before the acceptance. Once his resignation is accepted there is no jural relationship between the employee and the employer and the employee cannot claim for withdrawal of the resignation nor reinstatement in the post. In the present case, it is not very clear in the application submitted by the appellant on 12.02.1990 the prayer of the appellant, but it would be clear from various correspondences between the High Court and the Government that he seeks for re-employment. The above being the settled position of law, we have repeatedly requested the learned senior counsel for the appellant to show us as to whether there is any provision in service rule providing for re-employment after the resignation has been accepted. This is more so because from the various correspondences issued by the Financial Department and the Administrative Department that there is no such provision in service rules for re-employment.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.