Background facts

The employee was working as 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, passed the selection process and was offered the position by letter dated June 7, 2024. He was asked to join by July 5, 2024.

On receiving this offer, the employee submitted his resignation to BVFCL on the same day, requesting to be released within 15 days. He was on probation and thought he didn’t have to serve a notice period. However, BVFCL did not process his resignation immediately. Instead, the BVFCL issued a memorandum on 15 June 2024 retroactively confirming his service, effectively delaying 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 gave an undertaking to the defendant that he would provide an exemption letter from BVFCL within 30 days. The BVFCL, however, issued a show cause notice on 12 July 2024, questioning his departure and threatening him with disciplinary action. The employee filed an application in the Gauhati High Court, which stayed any disciplinary proceedings against BVFCL and directed BVFCL to process his resignation.

Despite the Gauhati High Court order, Hindustan Urvarak and Rasayan Ltd. revoked the employee’s membership on August 19, 2024, citing his failure to provide the exemption letter within the stipulated time. Dissatisfied with 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 any further steps to fill up the said vacancy.

It was contended by the employee that the Gauhati High Court had already noticed that the BVFCL had issued an order dated 03.10.2024 accepting the resignation of the employee and discharging him from service. Therefore, the employee submitted that in view of the exemption letter issued by BVFCL, there should be no bar in allowing the employee to rejoin as Vice President (Finance) with the respondent as that was the only reason for revocation.

On the other hand, the respondent claimed that the post of Vice President (Finance) was vacant. They argued that the sole reason for revoking the employee’s employment was that he was not exempt from the BVFCL and that the employee’s merits or credentials were not in question because he was a candidate selected by the defendant.

Findings of the Court

The court held that the sole reason for revoking the employee’s employment was that he could not provide an exemption letter from BVFCL, as per his commitment to submit the exemption letter within 30 days of joining. It was also observed that BVFCL released the employee on 03.10.2024 and, therefore, the basis of the ordinance no longer remains alive and there is no obstacle to the employee joining the respondent.

Next, the court held that the respondent did not initiate any new procedure to occupy the position in question and, therefore, the position remains vacant, on which the employee can reintegrate. The contested order dated 19.08.2024 issued by the respondent was quashed by the court.

The court held that the respondent would allow the employee to join the post of Vice President (Finance) within one week with all subsequent benefits. With the aforementioned observations, the summons was granted.