M/S. NEW VICTORIA MILLS & ORS. versus SHRIKANT ARYA

Citation: [2021] 11 S.C.R. 750 · Decided: 27-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
750
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 750
750
M/s. NEW VICTORIA MILLS & ORS.
v.
SHRIKANT ARYA
(Civil Appeal No. 5685 of 2021 )
SEPTEMBER 27, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Service Law – Resignation – When not conditional – Modified
Voluntary Retirement Scheme – Respondent submitted resignation
under the Scheme vide letter dtd. 12.07.02 – On 03.03.2003, the
respondent requested that his application under the Scheme be kept
suspended – Vide letter dtd. 01.07.03, the respondent requested
that his letter dtd.12.07.02 be treated as having been cancelled
because he had changed his mind about submitting resignation
under the Scheme – However, the resignation was accepted and the
respondent was to be relieved accordingly – Challenged by
respondent – Single Judge ruled in favour of the respondent – Order
upheld by Division Bench – On appeal, held: Resignation of the
respondent had already been accepted on 28.05.03 before he
endeavoured to withdraw the same – Right of a person whose
resignation has been accepted was to receive inter alia the benefit of
the provident fund amount as one of the terminal benefits under the
Scheme – The fact that there was some discrepancy on account of
the description of the name in the account for which there was some
prior communication also, will not imply that any delay in
disbursement of the provident fund amount would entitle the
respondent to withdraw his resignation – Resignation was not a
conditional resignation – Letter dtd.03.03.2003 cannot be construed
as a letter of withdrawal of resignation – All that it stated was that
the resignation be “kept suspended” till the amount is deposited in
his provident fund account – Further, acceptance of resignation
and the abolition of the post were simultaneous exercises – Once
the letter of resignation was accepted on 28.05.03, the post stood
abolished – Respondent cannot take advantage of the postponement
of the cut-off date by a few days – Also, mere delay in relieving the
respondent from duties would not impact the acceptance of his
resignation – Impugned order set aside.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
751
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The respondent filed the application under the
Scheme. If the letter dated 12.07.2002 is looked at closely, the
intent of the respondent was clear, i.e., to submit his resignation.
It is not a resignation operative from a future date but one which
would operate as per the Scheme. It is also not a conditional
resignation as was sought to be canvassed by the respondent.
The mere assertion that all benefits arising out of the service
period of the applicant would be paid to him is a natural corollary
of their resignation. Such a resignation can hardly be called
conditional. If this resignation letter under the Scheme is looked
at, no doubt in terms of Clause 1.6 of the MVRS, the option lay
with the management to decline an application without assigning
any reasons. That again will not make the resignation conditional.
In a contractual context, it would be an offer made by an employee
under the Scheme which may or may not be accepted by the
appellant-management. Once the acceptance takes place, the
contract stands concluded. Such acceptance has to be in terms of
the Scheme. Thus, the crucial question is whether the subsequent
communications of the respondent could give the resignation
letter a colour of a conditional resignation and whether the
withdrawal was prior to its acceptance. [Paras 30, 31][765-F-H;
766-A-B]
1.2 The MVRS, more specifically Clause 4.0, provides for
terminal benefits payable under the Scheme. Clause 4.1 requires
the balance in the provident fund account to be paid as per the
Employees Provident Fund Act. Thus, the right of a person whose
resignation has been accepted is to receive inter alia the benefit
of the provident fund amount as one of the terminal benefits under
the Scheme. The fact that there was some discrepancy on account
of the description of the name in the account for which there was
some prior communication itself, will not imply that any delay in
disbursement of the provident fund amount would entitle the
respondent to withdraw his resignation. If there is any
unreasonable delay, the amount may carry interest. In the given
facts of the case, it appears that the account was credited to an
account number where it ought to have been credited, but there
was some problem in the name/description of the beneficiary which
M/s. NEW VICT

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