The Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed a foundational principle in service law: an employee remains entitled to salary and service benefits during the period between tendering resignation and its formal acceptance, even if the delay is attributable to the employer. This ruling reinforces the doctrine that administrative inaction cannot be weaponized to deprive public servants of earned entitlements.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a Trained Graduate Teacher with Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS), tendered her resignation on 14.02.2024, citing prolonged sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. She sought immediate release from service and payment of pending salary, allowances, gratuity, and NPS contributions. The respondents refused to accept the resignation, claiming it was "conditional" due to its factual narration of workplace grievances. Despite ceasing duties immediately, the petitioner was kept in a state of administrative limbo for nearly eleven months.
Procedural History
- 14.02.2024: Petitioner submitted resignation via letter (Annexure P-3)
- 16.11.2023: Departmental committee constituted to investigate sexual harassment complaints (Annexure P-11)
- 02.05.2024: Inquiry report prepared but not shared with petitioner
- 07.01.2025: Resignation formally accepted with retrospective effect from 14.02.2024
- 07.01.2025: Salary, gratuity, and NPS benefits released
- Prior to this: Petitioner approached Delhi High Court, which declined jurisdiction; Supreme Court permitted withdrawal and directed filing before appropriate High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) declaration that her resignation was valid and unconditional; (2) payment of salary and benefits for the period between tendering and acceptance; (3) disclosure of the complete sexual harassment inquiry report; and (4) directions to ensure institutional accountability.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a public servant is entitled to salary and service benefits for the period between tendering resignation and its formal acceptance, when the delay is caused by the employer’s administrative inaction, and whether writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 permits judicial review of workplace harassment inquiries once statutory authorities have acted.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the resignation was unequivocal and that mere narration of circumstances does not render it conditional. Relying on Raj Kumar v. Union of India, counsel contended that the employer-employee relationship continues until formal acceptance, and withholding salary during this period violates Article 14 and Article 21. The failure to provide the inquiry report was argued as a breach of natural justice and the POSH Act, 2013.
For the Respondent
The State contended that NVS is a statutory body governed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, and thus the writ petition was not maintainable. It further argued that the resignation was properly scrutinized under DoPT guidelines and that acceptance with retrospective effect cured any irregularity. All benefits were paid, and the sexual harassment complaints had been addressed by competent authorities, making further judicial intervention unnecessary.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by affirming the settled principle that resignation becomes effective only upon acceptance by the competent authority, unless rules provide otherwise. Citing Raj Kumar v. Union of India, the Court emphasized that until acceptance, the employee retains locus paenitentiae and the employer retains the duty to process the resignation without undue delay.
"Till the resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance, the public servant concerned has locus paenitentiae but not thereafter. Undue delay in intimating to the public servant concerned the action taken on the letter of resignation may justify an inference that resignation has not been accepted."
The Court rejected the State’s argument that retrospective acceptance absolved it of liability. It held that retrospective orders cannot be used as legal fictions to extinguish accrued rights. The eleven-month delay, during which no disciplinary action was initiated and no order of abandonment was passed, amounted to an implicit election to treat the petitioner as still in service.
Applying the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, the Court relied on Joint Action Committee of Airline Pilots’ Association of India v. DGCA and Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation v. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation, observing that the State could not simultaneously treat the petitioner as employed (to justify salary retention) and then deny her benefits on the ground that she had resigned.
On the issue of sexual harassment, the Court acknowledged the gravity of the allegations but declined to interfere under writ jurisdiction. Citing Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Man Mohan Nath Sinha, it held that judicial review under Article 226 is confined to the legality of the decision-making process, not the sufficiency of the outcome. Since committees were constituted and actions taken, the Court found no procedural illegality warranting intervention.
The Verdict
The petitioner won on the issue of salary entitlement. The Court held that she is entitled to salary, allowances, and service benefits for the period from 14.02.2024 to 07.01.2025, subject to statutory deductions. The reliefs relating to the sexual harassment inquiry report and institutional accountability were dismissed, as they fell outside the scope of writ jurisdiction once statutory mechanisms had acted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Salary Must Be Paid During Resignation Delay
- Practitioners must advise public servants that they are entitled to full pay from the date of resignation until formal acceptance, even if the delay is due to administrative inaction
- Employers cannot withhold salary on grounds of "conditional resignation" if the intention to sever employment is clear
- Any delay beyond reasonable time triggers liability for arrears, regardless of retrospective acceptance
Retrospective Acceptance Does Not Erase Accrued Rights
- Administrative orders with retrospective effect cannot be used to nullify benefits earned during the pendency of resignation
- Courts will not permit employers to benefit from their own delay
- This principle applies equally to private sector employees under service contracts with similar terms
Writ Courts Will Not Re-Appreciate Harassment Inquiry Outcomes
- Once statutory committees under POSH Act have acted, writ courts will not re-examine the adequacy of findings or punishment
- Petitioners must pursue internal appeals or civil remedies if dissatisfied with inquiry outcomes
- Writ jurisdiction remains available only if there is procedural illegality, bias, or complete non-application of mind
