Employee Withdrew Resignation Much Before He Was Relieved: Supreme Court Upholds Grant Of 50% Backwages

The Apex Court was considering a review petition filed by the Konkan Railway Corporation. The petition was filed against the judgment of the Apex Court allowing a Civil Appeal of the respondent-employee, against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court holding that he could not withdraw his resignation.

The Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal noted, “Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that the ‘errors’ as pointed out in the review petition do not have the effect of changing our decision. The fact remains that, though the respondent employee resigned by letter dated 05.12.2013, with effect from 05.01.2014, the final letters of the Konkan Railway dated 23.06.2014, 01.07.2014 and 15.07.2014 conclusively established that the resignation is accepted with effect from 01.07.2014.”

“In any event of the matter, justice and equity lie in favour of the employee, who has rendered 23 years of unblemished service. Seen in this context, we are of the opinion that it will be unjust to interpret few letters exchanged between the parties to hold that the employee has deliberately and consciously resigned, particularly when he has been contesting the case for more than a decade”, it added.

Factual Background

The Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal of the employee and held that the respondent withdrew his resignation before it was accepted by the Corporation, and also that he had rendered 23 years of unblemished service. The Apex Court held that it would be unfair to infer severance of service on the basis of contentious correspondence between parties for a couple of months.

Arguments

It was the case of Konkan Railway that the judgment of the court required review because of two apparent errors. It was argued that the conclusion of the Court that the letter of Konkan Railway accepting the respondent-employee’s resignation as internal departmental communication was not correct, as the letter was communicated to the employee on April 16, 2014. It was also argued that the communication dated April 16, 2014, was mentioned in the letter of the respondent-employee dated May 26, 2014, withdrawing the resignation. It was contended that the employee did not report to duty on May 19, 2014, as mentioned in the judgment, but came to the office only to conclude the relieving process. It was thus contended that the Court ought not to have granted even 50% of the back-wages.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the ‘errors’ as pointed out in the review petition did not have the effect of changing the decision. It was noticed that, though the respondent employee resigned by letter dated December 5, 2013, with effect from January 5, 2014, the final letters of the Konkan Railway dated June 23, 2014, July 1, 2014 and July 15, 2014 conclusively established that the resignation was accepted with effect from July 1, 2014. “There is no doubt about the fact that the respondent-employee withdraw his resignation on 26.05.2014 i.e. much before 01.07.2014, when he was relieved, as is evidenced by letters and office orders dated 23.06.2014, 01.07.2014 and 15.07.2014”, it noted.

The Bench was of the view that justice and equity lay in favour of the employee, who had rendered 23 years of service. It was in such a background that the Apex Court had directed that the interests of justice would be subserved if the respondent-employee was held entitled to receive only 50% of salary from July 1, 2014 to the date of reinstatement.

“Having considered the review petition in detail and having given our anxious consideration, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for reviewing of judgment dated 13.09.2024”, the Bench held while dismissing the review petition.

Cause Title: Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. S.D. Manohara (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1368)

Click here to read/download Order