BHARTIBEN CHANDRAKANTBHAI THAKOR versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 5 S.C.R. 712 · Decided: 27-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
   [2023] 5 S.C.R. 712
712
BHARTIBEN CHANDRAKANTBHAI THAKOR
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No 24 of 2013)
FEBRUARY 27, 2023 
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI,
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND
J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.] 
Service law: Resignation – Pensionary dues – Appellant,
Auxiliary Nurse Midwife submitted her resignation, however,
withdrew it prior to its acceptance – Subsequently, she was called
upon to resume her service but was not allowed to join – Much
thereafter an order was passed accepting her resignation – High
Court set aside the said order and directed that the appellant was
entitled to all consequential benefits – However, the Division Bench
modified the order of Single Judge to the extent that the appellant
was held not to be entitled to any benefits for the period for which
the resignation was in force – On appeal, held: Expression “for the
period for which resignation was in force” could not be stretched
to a date after the resignation had been withdrawn, before it came
into force – It was not open to the State to continue passing successive
order of this nature once the dispute over the period of resignation
and the manner in which the resignation had to be treated had
attained finality – Appellant not entitled to any consequential benefits
only for the period between the date of submission her resignation
to the date she withdrew her resignation – Appellant has completed
24 years 10 months and 5 days of pensionable service, thus, should
be treated to have completed the minimum pensionable service of
25 years – Pensionary dues payable to the appellant to be computed
on that basis regardless of any order passed by the State
government.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.24 of
2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2009 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in LPA No.70 of 2007 and SCA No.14636 of
2006.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
713
Nachiketa Joshi, Ms. Himadri Haksar, Ajay Shukla, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
1. The appellant was appointed as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife by
the District Panchayat, Valsad on 15 January 1980. She submitted her
resignation from service on 18 April 1993, but on 23 November 1993,
withdrew it. On 20 December 1993, she was called upon to resume
service. She was however not permitted to join until 16 April 1994. On
23/26 December 1994, an order was passed accepting her resignation
with effect from 31 March 1993. This gave rise to the institution of a
petition1 under Article 226 of the Constitution by the appellant.
2. By a judgment dated 12 October 2000, a Single Judge of the
High Court of Gujarat set aside the order dated 23/26 December 1994
and directed that the appellant would be entitled to all consequential
benefits.
3. In a Letters Patent Appeal2 filed by the State of Gujarat, a
Division Bench of the High Court found that the appellant had not been
allowed to resume her duties for no fault of hers. However, the Division
Bench directed that the appellant shall not be entitled to any benefits for
the period for which the resignation was in force.
4. The above narration indicates that the issue pertaining to the
resignation of the appellant attained finality with the judgment of the
Division Bench dated 22 February 2001. Evidently, the appellant had
withdrawn her resignation prior to its acceptance. The subsequent order
of the Government accepting her resignation in December 1994 with
effect from 31 March 1993 was of no consequence in law. The
consequence of the decision of the High Court was that the resignation
of the appellant from service which was withdrawn on 23 November
1993 would not have any legal effect. The only consequence of the
judgment of the Division Bench was that whereas the Single Judge had
1 Special Civil Appeal No 10418 of 1995
2 Letters Patent Appeal No 97 of 2001
BHARTIBEN CHANDRAKANTBHAI THAKOR v. STATE OF
GUJARAT
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
714
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
directed that the appellant would be entitled to all consequential benefits,
the Division Bench held that she would not be entitled to benefits for the
period for which the resignation was in force. In other words, this period
would be from 18 April 1993 until 23 November 1993.
5. Despite the above legal position, an order 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.