By Dr Swati Jindal Garg
The corridors of justice often echo with stories of resilience. Sometimes, they carry the quiet yet unyielding voice of a woman who refuses to be silenced. A recent judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is one such story—an account of a teacher’s struggle against institutional apathy, a hostile workplace, and the denial of her rightful dues.
At its core, the case posed a deceptively simple question: does narrating the circumstances that compel a resignation render it “conditional”? Or does such narration merely record the truth behind a decision already made?
THE PETITION: MORE THAN A FORMAL EXIT
The petitioner, a Trained Graduate Teacher with the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS), tendered her resignation on February 14, 2024. It was not a sterile administrative note. 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 conscious decision to step away from what she described as a toxic environment eroding her health and dignity.
The respondents, however, treated her letter as a “conditional resignation”. They insisted she submit a stripped-down, “simple and unconditional” version, effectively demanding that she erase the context of her suffering in exchange for administrative acceptance. The insistence was not merely procedural; it was coercive. It sought silence as the price of closure.
A HOSTILE WORKPLACE AND INSTITUTIONAL HALF-MEASURES
Her tenure across JNV Poonch, JNV Butana and JNV Karnal reflected diligence and professional commitment. Yet, her record was marred by repeated grievances. Committees were formed. Suspensions were ordered. But the atmosphere, she claimed, remained hostile.
What stands out is not only the alleged harassment, but the systemic failure to deliver meaningful redress. When protective mechanisms falter, resignation becomes the final refuge. For the petitioner, it was not abandonment—it was escape.
JURISDICTIONAL HURDLES AND A YEAR IN LIMBO
Her legal journey was anything, but linear. The Delhi High Court declined jurisdiction. The Supreme Court initially issued notice, but later permitted withdrawal, directing her to approach the appropriate High Court for expeditious relief.
Meanwhile, her resignation remained pending for nearly 11 months. It was eventually accepted retrospectively on January 7, 2025. During this interregnum—a year marked by uncertainty—her salary, allowances, gratuity, and National Pension System contributions were withheld.
The respondents argued that disputes involving NVS fall under the exclusive domain of the Central Administrative Tribunal and that, since her resignation had been accepted and dues released, no grievance survived. But this argument overlooked the crux of her claim: the prolonged delay and deprivation of benefits during the period when her employment status remained unresolved.
THE COURT’S LENS: FAIRNESS IN THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
Justice Sandeep Moudgil approached the matter through settled principles. Citing Raj Kumar vs Union of India, the Court reaffirmed that resignation becomes effective only upon acceptance by the competent authority. Until then, the employer-employee relationship subsists.
Here, the respondents neither accepted her resignation promptly nor initiated disciplinary proceedings for alleged absence. They chose to keep the relationship alive. To deny her salary and benefits for that period, the Court observed, amounted to “blowing hot and cold”—a position long disapproved by the Supreme Court.
Invoking the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, the Court held that retrospective acceptance cannot extinguish accrued rights. The petitioner was therefore entitled to salary and allowances from February 14, 2024 until January 7, 2025.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT ALLEGATIONS: JUDICIAL RESTRAINT
The petitioner also sought directions concerning her sexual harassment complaints, including supply of inquiry reports and accountability measures. On this front, the Court exercised restraint.
While acknowledging that sexual harassment strikes at the core of dignity and equality, the Court emphasised the limits of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Judicial review examines the decision-making process—not the sufficiency of evidence or the merits of fact-finding. As committees had been constituted and inquiries conducted, the Court declined to reopen those proceedings.
However, it clarified that she remained free to pursue remedies under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, or other appropriate forums.
The balance was delicate: empathy without overreach, intervention without institutional substitution.
BETWEEN LAW AND LIFE
What makes this judgment compelling is its human undertone. A resignation letter became a battleground over narrative. By insisting on an “unconditional” format, the institution attempted to sanitise context—reducing lived trauma to bureaucratic form.
The Court’s ruling restored financial entitlements and reaffirmed fairness in administrative conduct. Yet, it also underscored the limits of judicial remedies. Courts can correct procedural injustice; they cannot always heal dignity denied.
BROADER IMPLICATIONS
The decision raises larger questions. Should employees be compelled to mute grievances to secure acceptance of resignation? Can administrative delay be weaponised to deprive them of lawful dues?
The answers lie in institutional accountability. Internal Complaints Committees must function transparently. Resignations should not be cleansed of context. And no employee should have to choose between dignity and financial security.
CONCLUSION: A PARTIAL VICTORY
The ruling marks a partial victory. The petitioner will receive her salary and allowances for the delayed period. Yet, her pursuit of deeper accountability remains unfinished.
For institutions, the message is clear: bureaucracy cannot override fairness. For society, the reminder is urgent—workplace dignity is not negotiable.
—The author is an Advocate-on-Record practising in the Supreme Court,
Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi
