1 CGHC010299952020 2026:CGHC:36065 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 295 of 2021 1 - Jaideep Agrawal S/o Shriram Agrawal Aged About 34 Years Presently Posted As Accountant At Nagar Palika Parishad Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, R/o Ranisagarpara, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, PL For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Priyanka Rai Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 17/07/2020 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Janjgir-Champa. 10.2 That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent consider the candidature of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) as re- appointment. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to count the services of the petitioner from his initial date of appointment 13/12/2017 thereby considering the period of resignation and period of joining difference as only break in service. 10.4 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH DN: cn=REKHA SINGH, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.08.17 16:13:13 +0530 -2- favour of the petitioner.” 2. Mr. Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner, who was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I vide order dated 13.12.2017, tendered his resignation on 24.06.2019. He would submit that his resignation was accepted by the competent authority on 15.07.2020 with effect from 25.06.2019. He would contend that prior to date of acceptance, the petitioner had submitted an application for withdrawal of his resignation on 17.06.2020, which was rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 17.07.2020. He would submit that as the application for withdrawal of resignation was submitted prior to the date of acceptance of resignation, the authority concerned ought to have allowed said application. He has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of S.D. Manohara Vs. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited and others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2546, and Dr. Suman V. Jain Vs. Marwadi Sammelan Through its Secretary and others, reported in 2024 (13) SCC 598. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Mishra would submit that the resignation was tendered by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and the advance salary was also deposited. She would further submit that the resignation application of the petitioner was forwarded to the Block Education Officer on 18.06.2019, but it was 3 accepted by the competent authority on 15.07.2020 with effect from 25.06.2019. It is argued that, as the resignation was accepted with effect from 25.06.2019 and the application for withdrawal was submitted subsequently, respondent No.2 rightly rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 17.07.2020. She would contend that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Ojha, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, would endorse the submissions made by Ms. Mishra. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. In the matter of S.D. Manohara (supra), it has been held that where an application for withdrawal of resignation was submitted much before the effective date of resignation, the respondent authorities ought to have accepted the same. Relevant paragraph 11 is reproduced hereinbelow: “11. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has in fact reported to duty on 19.05.2014. There is also the communication of the appellants wife on 17.04.2014 and 20.05.2014 requesting that the resignation dated 05.12.2013 should not be accepted by the respondents. As stated earlier, there is also the letter dated 10.05.2014 of the respondent asking the appellant to report on duty for considering his unauthorised absence from 28.04.2014 to 18.05.2014 which gives an indication that there was no finality to the letter of resignation dated 05.12.2013. The learned single Judge was correct in his conclusion that the resignation was withdrawn before its acceptance. The relevant portion of the single Judge order is as under:- “13. In the present case, the resignation which was submitted on 05.12.2013 with a request to accept it at the expiry of one month was stated to have been accepted only on 15.04.2014. There is undue delay in accepting the resignation by the respondents. In the above decision, the delay of mere 13 days in communicating acceptance of the resignation, is held to be not an undue delay so as to infer that resignation had not already been accepted. Therefore, the decision in Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar’s case is also of no help to the -4- respondents. 14.In the circumstances, I am of the view that petitioner having submitted his letter dated 26.5.2014 seeking to withdraw the resignation much before the effective date, 01.07.2014 with official order on 15.07.2014 by which the petitioner was relieved of his duties, withdrawal of resignation ought to have been accepted by the respondents and continued the petitioner in service. The contrary decision by the respondents by the communication dated 23.06.2014 that withdrawal of resignation is not accepted and decision accepting the resignation stands good, is not sustainable in law….” 7. In the matter of Dr. Suman V. Jain (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that resignation can be withdrawn before its effective date in the absence of any contrary rule or regulation. Paragraph 30 is reproduced hereinbelow: “30. In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer question (A) and (B) in favour of appellant and hold that letter dated 25.03.2003 is an intimation of resignation from a prospective date i.e., 24.09.2003, which could have been withdrawn by the appellant prior to the effective date. There is no Rule or Regulation brought to our notice which restrains such withdrawal. There was no prior consent to the letter dated 08.04.2003 for accepting resignation w.e.f. 24.09.2003 as ‘final, binding and irrevocable’ which is on record and therefore, by using such words, the acceptance of resignation was unilateral. As discussed, there was no implied contract and understanding with prior consent. Therefore, the withdrawal of such resignation by appellant prior to the effective date is permissible as per the law laid down in the case of Gopal Chandra Misra (supra) and Srikantha S.M. (supra).” 8. Coming to the facts of the present case, the resignation was tendered by the petitioner on 24.06.2019 and was accepted by the competent authority on 15.07.2020 with effect from 25.06.2019. However, prior to the date of acceptance of the resignation, the petitioner had submitted an application for withdrawal of his resignation on 17.06.2020. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner had withdrawn his resignation prior to its acceptance. Therefore, 5 the order dated 17.07.2020 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the petitioner’s application for withdrawal of resignation is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is, accordingly, quashed. 9. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service within a period of 30 days from the date of this order. He shall be entitled to 50% of the salary for the period during which he remained out of service. The period during which the petitioner remained out of service shall be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha