When Previous Employer Accepts Resignation, New Employer Can't Deny Appointment To Selected Employee : Delhi High Court

A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Jyoti Singh, while deciding writ petition held that if an employee has already been relieved by the previous employer, then the new employer can't deny appointment to employee who has passed the selection process. Background Facts The employee was working as a General Manager (Finance) at Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited (BVFCL). In January 2024, Hindustan Urvarak and Rasayan Ltd. (respondent) advertised a vacancy for the post of Vice President (Finance). The employee applied, successfully passed the selection process, and was offered the position in a letter dated June 7, 2024. He was required to join by July 5, 2024. Upon receiving this offer, the employee submitted his resignation to BVFCL on the same day, requesting to be relieved within 15 days. He was on probation and believed that he didn't need to serve a notice period. However, BVFCL did not process his resignation immediately. Instead, BVFCL issued a memorandum on June 15, 2024, retroactively confirming his service, which effectively delayed his release. The employee decided to join Hindustan Urvarak and Rasayan Ltd. on July 8, 2024, when he could not get any response from BVFCL. He submitted an undertaking to respondent that he would provide a relieving letter from BVFCL within 30 days. BVFCL, however, issued a show-cause notice on July 12, 2024, questioning his departure and threatening disciplinary action. The employee filed a writ petition in the Gauhati High Court, which stayed any disciplinary proceedings by BVFCL and instructed the BVFCL to process his resignation. Despite the order from the Gauhati High Court, Hindustan Urvarak and Rasayan Ltd. revoked the employee's joining on August 19, 2024, citing his failure to provide the relieving letter within the stipulated time. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, challenging the revocation. By order dated 28.08.2024, the Delhi High Court directed the respondent not to take further steps to fill-up the vacancy in question. It was contended by the employee that the Gauhati High Court already observed that BVFCL had issued an order dated 03.10.2024 accepting the resignation of the employee and relieving him from service. Therefore employee contended that in view of the relieving letter issued by BVFCL, there should be no hindrance in permitting the employee to join back on the post of Vice President (Finance) with the respondent as that was the only ground for revocation. On the other hand it was contended by the respondent that the post of Vice President (Finance) was lying vacant. They submitted that the sole reason for revoking the joining of the employee was his not being relieved by BVFCL and that employee's merit or credentials were not in question as he was a candidate selected by the respondent. Findings of the Court It was observed by the court that the only reason for revoking the joining of the employee was that he was unable to furnish a relieving letter from BVFCL, as per the undertaking given by him to produce the relieving letter within 30 days of joining. It was further observed that BVFCL has relieved the employee w.e.f. 03.10.2024 and therefore, the basis of the order no longer survives and there is no obstacle in the way of the employee from joining the respondent. It was further observed by the court that respondent had not initiated any fresh process for filling up the post in question and therefore, the post is lying vacant on which the employee can join back. The impugned order dated 19.08.2024 passed by the respondent was quashed by the court. It was held by the court that respondent shall permit the employee to join back on the post of Vice President (Finance) within a period of one week with all consequential benefits. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed. Title: MATTHEW JOHNSON DARA v. HINDUSTAN URVARAK AND RASAYAN LTDCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1195Counsel for the Petitioner : Anupam Lal Das, Senior Advocate with Punit D. Tyagi and Abhishek Mehra, Advocates Counsel for the Respondent : Praveen Kumar Singh, Sujit Kumar Singh and Md. Ziauddin Ahmad, AdvocatesClick Here To Read/Download The Order

When Previous Employer Accepts Resignation, New Employer Can't Deny Appointment To Selected Employee : Delhi High Court

Namdev Singh

Tags