Dhrub Kumar Roy and Others vs Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. and Others

Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent Bank.

These three petitioners who are all former employees of Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank. They have filed this common writ application challenging the order dated 20.3.2004 contained in armexure-5 by virtue of which their joint resignation letter has been accepted from the date of the order i.e. 20.8.2004. Petitioners now want to go back to the Bank and for which they have certain submissions to make.

By virtue of a common resignation letter contained in annexure-3 all these three petitioners tendered their resignation to the Managing Director to the Bank on 3.6.2004. The resignation letter states that the same is effective from 4.6.2004. The letter of resignation also further does state that their outstanding salary etc. should be paid within ten days from the date of resignation. The background stated by petitioners for taking this action is that they were not getting their regular salary from the Bank and this had caused serious mental agony and distress to them.

It is not in dispute that subsequently on 26.7.2004 the three petitioners again jointly decided to withdraw their resignation letter and in this regard the communication is annexure-4 to the writ application. As already noted above the resignation was accepted from 20.8.2004 i.e. on a subsequent date.

The basic contention of the petitioners based on various judicial opinion is that they have the liberty and right to withdraw their resignation letter before it is accepted by the competent authority. Since the petitioners had withdrawn their resignation letter on 16.7.2004, therefore, there is no occasion for the Managing Director of the Bank to ignore the same and issue Annexure-5, the impugned order by which the master and servant relationship was brought to an end. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decisions reported in Shambhu Murari Sinha Vs. Project and Development India Ltd. and Another, and Md. Shahzada Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, on the issue.

The law is quite clear in this regard. There are two views which are available one is that resignation can be withdrawn before the master and servant relationship is brought to an end or before the resignation takes effect. Though in the present case the petitioners tendered their resignation on 3rd June, 2004. to be effective from 4th June, 2004 but since the competent authority i.e. Managing Director took his time to decide the status of petitioners and could only issue the order in question contained in Annexure-5 on 20.8.2004 the petitioners had ample time to reconsider their decision, which they did by letter contained in Annexure-4.

In normal circumstances keeping in view the judicial trend or this issue, this Court would have accepted the submission of petitioners that since they had already exercised their right withdrawing their earlier resignation letter therefore, there is no occasion for the Managing Director to issue letter under Annexure-5. But something more has happened in the present case. Despite the petitioners filing the present writ application in the year, 2004 challenging the action of the Managing Director contained in Annexure-5 petitioner No. 1 has gone ahead and accepted the entire payment on 29.6.2007 up till the date when their resignation has been accepted. Petitioner No. 2 has accepted the payment on 20.12.2006. This action shows their reassertion of their intention and demand that they did not want to continue in service of the respondents. The conduct of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 therefore, denies them the advantage of challenging annexure-5 by which their resignation letter was accepted by the respondents.

The case of petitioner No. 3 is somewhat different because it is categorically stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank that he has refused to accept his salary due although it is readily available for payment. In other words in so far as petitioner No. 3 is concerned, his stand is intact and wants to stick to the withdrawal letter. This shows that he still wants to continue in the Bank and he had not accepted payment after his withdrawal letter.

This being the distinguishable feature between petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and petitioner No. 3 this Court would be inclined to pass order in favour of petitioner No. 3 and to direct that in. so far as petitioner No. 3 is concerned, the order contained in annexure-5 will not be applicable and to that extent stands quashed.

In so far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned since they have accepted the payments made by the Bank as recently as a month ago, this Court is of the view that they have asserted their intention of not continuing in the service of the Bank and, therefore, it is difficult for this Court to order their reinstatement by quashing annexure-5 which has been issued against them.

This writ application is, therefore, dismissed in so far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned and is allowed with respect to petitioner No. 3.