A government employee cannot be treated as having left service if her resignation was never accepted by the competent authority, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held.Justice Harkesh Manuja ruled that her earlier service could not be treated as a fresh break for deciding her seniority and consequential service benefits in such a situation.The ruling came as Justice Manuja allowed a 32-year-old case of an 82-year-old appellant. The regular second appeal filed by Sureksha Kumari was pending before the High Court since 1994.Appearing before the Bench, advocate Manu K Bhandari told the Bench that Kumari was appointed as a Social Studies Mistress through an appointment letter dated February 22, 1967, and joined Government High School, Jallalabad (West), on March 18, 1967. She was subsequently transferred to Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Fazilka.She tendered her resignation with one month’s notice on September 12, 1970, and was relieved from duty on November 5, 1970. Later, her request for withdrawal of the resignation was accepted.Justice Manuja’s Bench was told that her resignation was never accepted by the competent authority and the matter remained under consideration with the Education Department. She was eventually permitted to rejoin the same post at Government High School, Jallalabad (West), where she joined on July 30, 1971.Her claim was that her original date of joining—March 18, 1967—should be counted for seniority, length of service, gratuity, provident fund and other service benefits, instead of July 30, 1971.Although the seniority list reflected March 18, 1967 as her date of joining, she alleged that the department was otherwise treating July 30, 1971 as her entry into service.The department, on the other hand, contended that the resignation became effective after the notice period expiry. It maintained that the intervening period from November 6, 1970, to July 29, 1971, could neither be condoned nor regularised.Referring to Rule 7.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules dealing with forfeiture of service on resignation, Justice Manuja observed that the provision contemplated a resignation which actually became effective.The Bench pointed out that the sub-rules referred to the date on which the resignation “became effective” and to the post vacated on the acceptance of resignation.“It would, therefore, not be appropriate to extend the operation of the Rule to a case where the resignation itself was never accepted by the competent authority,” Justice Manuja ruled.The Court also found that the employee had submitted her resignation and was subsequently relieved, but “there is no specific order or other material available on record” showing that it had been accepted or approved by the prescribed authority.Justice Manuja added letter dated July 28, 1971, communicated by Ferozepur District Education Officer to Jalandhar Divisional Education Officer recorded that resignation offer submitted by the appellant-plaintiff was never accepted.“The resignation offered by the appellant-plaintiff vide letter dated September 12, 1970, was never accepted by the competent authority and once, that was so, the relationship of employee and employer continued between the appellant and the respondents and it is more than settled that an employee is entitled to withdraw the resignation before its acceptance by the competent authority,” Justice Manuja ruled.The Court consequently held that the period from March 18, 1967, her initial appointment, to July 30, 1971, when she rejoined, was to be counted towards her seniority and all consequential benefits, including re-fixation of pay and pensionary benefits. At the same time, Justice Manuja specifically held that the period of absence from duty would not qualify for salary arrears.Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court. It directed payment of the benefits along with interest at 7 per cent “from the date of accrual till the date of realization”, within two months from receiving the order.Why the judgment mattersThe ruling matters beyond the employee’s individual case because it makes clear that a resignation cannot be treated as an end of service when the competent authority never accepted it.For government employees who are allowed to return to service after tendering a resignation, the distinction can directly affect seniority, pay and pensionary benefits.In this case, the High Court’s finding meant that the employee’s service from her original appointment in 1967 had to be counted for these purposes, though she was denied salary arrears for the period she remained away from duty.