JUDGMENT
T.K.Chandrasekhara Das, J.
1. The petitioner was a Stenographer, working under the respondents since September 19, 1982. In 1988, she was promoted to the post of Assistant. In February 1988, the petitioner went on Maternity Leave and a child was born to her on February 24, 1988. The petitioner was on maternity leave till April 30,1988. Due to deformity in the child, on the advice of the Doctor who recommended surgery of the child she had applied for earned leave for the period between May 1, 1988 and June 29, 1988. She had to further seek extension of her earned leave by her letter dated June 27, 1988. But by letter dated July 1, 1988, issued by the Second Respondent, she was called upon to report for duty latest by July 5, 1988. A copy of the said letter is produced as Exhibit ‘A’. On receipt of that letter, as there was (sic.) no option left to her for the sake of her child, she expressed her desire to resign from the post with effect from July 1, 1988.
2. It is an admitted case of the respondents that the said letter of resignation has been accepted by the respondents only on July 15, 1988. But in the meantime, the petitioner reconsidered the matter and decided to withdraw her resignation letter. Accordingly, vide letter dated July 7, 1988, she withdrew her resignation and on the same day, it was handed over to the Secretary, Legislature Department. There is also no dispute that the said letter of withdrawal of resignation was received by the respondents on July 7, 1988, much before the respondents are alleged to have accepted the
resignation. As she has withdrawn her resignation
before the acceptance of the resignation by the
respondents, there is no justification on the part
of the respondents to not to allow the petitioner to
continue in service. It is an elementary principle
of law that the resignation is only an offer to put
an end to relationship between the employer and
the employee and before such an offer is accepted
by the employer, the employee is entitled to
withdraw it, unless, otherwise, prescribed by rules
relating to concerned service. There is no
controversy or dispute regarding the factual
position that the withdrawal of the resignation has
been done by the petitioner before the acceptance
of her resignation. Therefore, the conduct of the
respondents in forbidding the petitioner from
continuing her service is not sustainable in law.
We find in the fact situation that the petitioner was
entitled to continue in service.
3. In the result, we partly allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitoner forthwith in the service. However, in the present circumstances of the case, we do not think it is appropriate to order payment of back wages to the petitioner as prayed for because the petitioner was restrained from continuing her services not on account of mala fide exercise of powers of the respondents. It appears that the respondents arc under the impression that once the resignation is received by them, it takes effect forthwith. They seem, to have the impression that the petitioner cannot withdraw the resignation when the resignation is in process of acceptance. We think, on account of such a misconception of law, the respondents did not allow the petitioner to continue in service. In that circumstance, we do not find any reason to order back wages to the petitioner for the period during which she did not actually work. However, the petitioner is entitled to the continuity of her service and other benefits, including fixation of pay with increments upto date. Rule made absolute in the above terms.
Writ petition partly allowed.