Passed Away Without Reaping Fruits: Delhi High Court Grants Relief To LRs Of AIIMS Nursing Orderly 47 Years After Disputed Resignation
The Bench held that the 1979 "resignation" was involuntary, and enhanced back wages from 40% to 50%.
The Delhi High Court has finally brought closure to a service dispute that began in 1979, ruling in favour of a Nursing Orderly employed with AIIMS who had contested his alleged resignation since 1981, but who passed away during the pendency of the writ petitions without living to see the litigation vindicated in his favour, leaving his legal representatives to receive the fruits of the adjudication nearly half a century later.
The Court upheld the Labour Court's finding that the workman did not voluntarily resign from service in 1979, holding that resignation requires a conscious and unequivocal intention to sever the employment relationship, and that his immediate and repeated representations seeking to resume duty were fundamentally inconsistent with any such intention, while also modifying the relief granted, enhancing back wages from 40% to 50% of wages from the date of illegal cessation of service till superannuation.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shail Jain observed, “…the litigation has remained pending for over four decades and the Respondent/workman, who had been contesting the proceedings since 1981, unfortunately passed away during the pendency of the present writ petitions in the year 2013, without reaping the fruits of the adjudication in his favour…”.
“…Human conduct often constitutes the best evidence of intention. Ordinarily, an employee who has voluntarily resigned from service with a clear intention of terminating the relationship of employment would not, within a matter of days, repeatedly beseech the employer to permit him to resume duties. The immediate and persistent representations made by the Respondent/workman, particularly the representation dated 20.10.1979, constituted relevant contemporaneous evidence from which the learned Labour Court was entitled to infer that the Respondent/workman never intended to relinquish his employment voluntarily”, the Bench said.
Advocate V. S. R. Krishna appeared for the petitioner and Advocate L. Gangmei appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, Mohd. Rafiq was appointed as a Nursing Orderly with AIIMS in 1964, where following an absence in 1979 due to his wife's illness, he was made to sign a document upon returning to work on October 15, 1979, which AIIMS subsequently treated as a formal resignation.
Rafiq maintained he signed the document believing it was necessary for his rejoining and never intended to resign. He sent multiple representations to resume duty, none of which received a response from AIIMS, leading to a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
In December 1998, the Labour Court ruled that the resignation was not voluntary and had been validly withdrawn before its purported acceptance. It directed Rafiq's reinstatement with continuity of service and 40% back wages. AIIMS challenged the reinstatement in the Delhi High Court, while Rafiq's legal representatives, who substituted for him after his death during the pendency of the petition, challenged the restriction of back wages, seeking full back wages instead.
The Delhi High Court rejected AIIMS's jurisdictional challenge, holding that the application of CCS (CCA) Rules does not bar proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. On the merits, the Bench confirmed that resignation requires clear intention and that Rafiq's persistent representations, combined with AIIMS's lack of a contemporaneous acceptance order, supported the finding of illegal cessation of service. Regarding back wages, the Court noted that while 40% lacked proper rationale, full back wages were also unwarranted given Rafiq's history of unauthorized absences.
Ultimately, the High Court dismissed AIIMS's petition and partially allowed the legal representatives' petition by enhancing the back wages to 50% from the date of illegal termination until Rafiq's superannuation in August 1996. AIIMS was directed to compute and release all consequential monetary and retiral benefits to his legal heirs within twelve weeks, failing which simple interest at 6% per annum will apply.
Cause Title: A.I.I.M.S. v. Mohd. Rafiq & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:6366)
Appearances:
Petitioner: V.S.R. Krishna and V. Shashank Kumar, Advocates.
Respondent: L. Gangmei, Advocate.