IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THIS THE 29th DAY OF JUNE, 2010 WRIT PETITION No.25190 of 1999 Between:
Mrs. Tara Marshall ... PETITIONER(S) and Atomic Energy Educational Society rep. by its Secretary …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25190 of 1999 ORDER:
The petitioner is employed as a Primary Teacher in the year 1988 by the Atomic Energy Educational Society, the 1st respondent herein. On 18.08.1999 she submitted a letter of resignation stating certain reasons. Immediately thereafter i.e. on 19.08.1999 itself she submitted a representation withdrawing the resignation. However, without considering the same, the 1st respondent accepted the resignation of the petitioner through proceedings dated 22.09.1999. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition.
The petitioner contends that on account of disturbances in the family, she has submitted a letter of resignation in emotion and on realizing that it is not on her interests, she has withdrawn the resignation on the next day itself. She contends that the respondent was under obligation to consider the same instead of mechanically accepting the resignation.
Respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the letter of resignation submitted by the petitioner was accepted strictly following the due procedure.
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Submission of resignation to posts by employees is not some thing new or extraordinary. However, it is not uncommon that such resignations are submitted out of emotions. In certain cases, impersonation also takes place. Obviously for this reason, the relevant service rules as well as the practice in vogue mandate that the appointing authority must ascertain from the concerned employee, as to whether the resignation was submitted voluntarily and whether he or she intends to abide by the request for resignation. In the instant case, hardly within one day from the date of submission of resignation, the petitioner withdrew it. Further, had the resignation been accepted before the withdrawal took place, things would have been different altogether. There was a gap of more than one month between the date of withdrawal and the acceptance of the resignation. The resignation was accepted long after the petitioner submitted the letter of withdrawal. No right can be said to have accrued to the respondents on the mere submission of resignation by the petitioner.
An important development is that the petitioner continued in service on the strength of the interim orders passed by this Court for the past more than a decade. It is stated that on account of bereavement in the family she has since submitted an application for voluntary retirement.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed and the service rendered by the petitioner on the strength of the interim orders passed by this court shall be treated as regular. Across Bar, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is now virtually mentally derailed. In case her application for voluntary retirement has been submitted, the respondents shall verify the same and accept it if it is otherwise in accordance with law and extend all the benefits payable to her. There shall be no order as to costs.
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 29th June 2010 CVRK