When Resignation Speaks: A Teacher’s Battle for Dignity Before the Punjab and Haryana High Court – India Legal

By Dr Swati Jindal Garg

The corridors of justice typically echo with tales of resilience. Generally, they carry the quiet but unyielding voice of a girl who refuses to be silenced. A current judgment of the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket is one such story—an account of a instructor’s wrestle in opposition to institutional apathy, a hostile office, and the denial of her rightful dues.

At its core, the case posed a deceptively easy query: does narrating the circumstances that compel a resignation render it “conditional”? Or does such narration merely file the reality behind a call already made?

THE PETITION: MORE THAN A FORMAL EXIT

The petitioner, a Educated Graduate Instructor with the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS), tendered her resignation on February 14, 2024. It was not a sterile administrative notice. It recounted her lived experiences—allegations of harassment, discriminatory allocation of duties, denial of entitlements, and the anguish of complaints that yielded little redress.

For her, resignation was not negotiation. It was survival—a acutely aware determination to step away from what she described as a poisonous atmosphere eroding her well being and dignity.

The respondents, nonetheless, handled her letter as a “conditional resignation”. They insisted she submit a stripped-down, “easy and unconditional” model, successfully demanding that she erase the context of her struggling in alternate for administrative acceptance. The insistence was not merely procedural; it was coercive. It sought silence as the value of closure.

A HOSTILE WORKPLACE AND INSTITUTIONAL HALF-MEASURES

Her tenure throughout JNV Poonch, JNV Butana and JNV Karnal mirrored diligence {and professional} dedication. But, her file was marred by repeated grievances. Committees have been fashioned. Suspensions have been ordered. However the ambiance, she claimed, remained hostile.

What stands out will not be solely the alleged harassment, however the systemic failure to ship significant redress. When protecting mechanisms falter, resignation turns into the ultimate refuge. For the petitioner, it was not abandonment—it was escape.

JURISDICTIONAL HURDLES AND A YEAR IN LIMBO

Her authorized journey was something, however linear. The Delhi Excessive Court docket declined jurisdiction. The Supreme Court docket initially issued discover, however later permitted withdrawal, directing her to method the suitable Excessive Court docket for expeditious reduction.

In the meantime, her resignation remained pending for almost 11 months. It was ultimately accepted retrospectively on January 7, 2025. Throughout this interregnum—a 12 months marked by uncertainty—her wage, allowances, gratuity, and Nationwide Pension System contributions have been withheld.

The respondents argued that disputes involving NVS fall underneath the unique area of the Central Administrative Tribunal and that, since her resignation had been accepted and dues launched, no grievance survived. However this argument neglected the crux of her declare: the extended delay and deprivation of advantages throughout the interval when her employment standing remained unresolved.

THE COURT’S LENS: FAIRNESS IN THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

Justice Sandeep Moudgil approached the matter via settled ideas. Citing Raj Kumar vs Union of India, the Court docket reaffirmed that resignation turns into efficient solely upon acceptance by the competent authority. Till then, the employer-employee relationship subsists.

Right here, the respondents neither accepted her resignation promptly nor initiated disciplinary proceedings for alleged absence. They selected to maintain the connection alive. To disclaim her wage and advantages for that interval, the Court docket noticed, amounted to “blowing cold and warm”—a place lengthy disapproved by the Supreme Court docket.

Invoking the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, the Court docket held that retrospective acceptance can not extinguish accrued rights. The petitioner was subsequently entitled to wage and allowances from February 14, 2024 till January 7, 2025.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT ALLEGATIONS: JUDICIAL RESTRAINT

The petitioner additionally sought instructions regarding her sexual harassment complaints, together with provide of inquiry studies and accountability measures. On this entrance, the Court docket exercised restraint.

Whereas acknowledging that sexual harassment strikes on the core of dignity and equality, the Court docket emphasised the boundaries of writ jurisdiction underneath Article 226. Judicial evaluate examines the decision-making course of—not the sufficiency of proof or the deserves of fact-finding. As committees had been constituted and inquiries carried out, the Court docket declined to reopen these proceedings.

Nonetheless, it clarified that she remained free to pursue cures underneath the Sexual Harassment of Ladies at Office (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, or different applicable boards.

The steadiness was delicate: empathy with out overreach, intervention with out institutional substitution.

BETWEEN LAW AND LIFE

What makes this judgment compelling is its human undertone. A resignation letter grew to become a battleground over narrative. By insisting on an “unconditional” format, the establishment tried to sanitise context—decreasing lived trauma to bureaucratic kind.

The Court docket’s ruling restored monetary entitlements and reaffirmed equity in administrative conduct. But, it additionally underscored the boundaries of judicial cures. Courts can right procedural injustice; they can not at all times heal dignity denied.

BROADER IMPLICATIONS

The choice raises bigger questions. Ought to staff be compelled to mute grievances to safe acceptance of resignation? Can administrative delay be weaponised to deprive them of lawful dues?

The solutions lie in institutional accountability. Inside Complaints Committees should operate transparently. Resignations shouldn’t be cleansed of context. And no worker ought to have to decide on between dignity and monetary safety.

CONCLUSION: A PARTIAL VICTORY

The ruling marks a partial victory. The petitioner will obtain her wage and allowances for the delayed interval. But, her pursuit of deeper accountability stays unfinished.

For establishments, the message is evident: paperwork can not override equity. For society, the reminder is pressing—office dignity will not be negotiable.

—The writer is an Advocate-on-File practising within the Supreme Court docket, Delhi Excessive Court docket and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi