SOORYAKANTH Vs. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed, being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to join duty, on the premise that the petitioner had resigned from its service. The petitioner, while working as Senior Assistant in the 1st respondent, had submitted Ext.P11 letter on 9.6.2015, expressing his intention to resign from the service of the first respondent. On the basis of the petitioner's letter, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P3 communication dated 20.6.2015, requesting the petitioner to get released from his outstanding liabilities as subscriber, hirer, surety, guarantor, loanee etc, urgently in order to accept the petitioner's resignation from the company's service. In Ext.P3, it was also stated that since the petitioner had failed to give advance notice of resignation, he had to remit one month's basic pay (Rs.13090.00), as Notice Pay. After receipt of Ext.P3 communication, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 letter dated 4.7.2015, stating that he was unable to close the liabilities as required in Ext.P3 letter and further requesting the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to withdraw his resignation letter and allow him to continue at the Sreekaryam Branch. Later, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 communication dated 4.9.2015, requiring him to receive his Group Savings Linked Insurance (GSLI) claim amount. Thereupon, the writ petition was filed seeking to quash Ext.P5 and the acceptance of the petitioner's resignation and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to work as Senior Assistant in the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

(2.) The specific contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that, the petitioner having withdrawn his resignation prior to its acceptance, the resignation had not come into effect and therefore, the respondents were bound to permit the petitioner to continue in service. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 stating that, as per Ext.P4, the petitioner had informed the respondents about his inability to clear the dues and that considering the petitioner's request, the respondents had decided to accept the petitioner's resignation and had, vide Ext.P5, requested the petitioner to collect the GSLI claim amount. It is stated that the resignation of the petitioner from the service of the establishment had come into effect and that if at all, the petitioner had delayed the formalities after resignation and hence the same cannot make the resignation invalid. The further contention is to the effect that from the conduct of the petitioner, after submission of the letter of resignation, in not having reported for duty thereafter, it is clear that even the petitioner was convinced about the fact that his resignation had taken effect.

(3.) From the rival contentions, the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to when, if at all, the petitioner's resignation had taken effect. For resolving this issue, a close scrutiny of the relevant documents is necessary. Ext.P11 is the letter of resignation, wherein, the petitioner had expressed his wish to resign from KSFE employment and had also requested the 3rd respondent, to whom the letter was addressed, to forward his request to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent to whom Ext.P3 was forwarded did not accept the resignation and on the other hand, required the petitioner to get released from the liabilities mentioned in Ext.P3 communication, as a condition for accepting his resignation. The 2nd respondent further requested the petitioner to remit one month's basic pay as notice pay, since he had failed to give advance notice of resignation. Though Ext.P4 is dated 4.7.2015, it was sent only on 23.7.2015, as is evident from the endorsement in the postal receipt. Even if it is taken that Ext.P4 was sent only on 23.7.2015, the respondents do not have a case that the petitioner's resignation was accepted prior to that date.