The acceptance of resignation is binding, requiring adherence to prescribed timeframes for withdrawal, with relaxation only permissible under exceptional hardship, subject to administrative considerations.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J.: (ORAL)

[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

CM APPL. 35139-40/2021

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 11415/2021 and CM APPL. 35141/2021[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner to place on record additional documents]

2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition has been taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.

3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.05.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short "the Tribunal"] in OA No.954/2021.

4. The short point, which we are called upon to consider, is: given the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case, has the Tribunal come to a correct conclusion, for the reasons given in the impugned order, that the respondents' decision not to permit the petitioner to withdraw his resignation was tenable.

5. Mr. Ajit K. Sinha, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that, broadly, two reasons have been given by the Tribunal, both of which are wrong.

(i) Under the extant rules, no period was provided for withdrawal of resignation.

(ii) Second, there was no rule, which could be triggered, whereby respondents could be called upon to relax the rigour of the period provided for withdrawal of resignation.

5.1. In support of his contentions, Mr. Sinha has drawn our attention to Rules 26(4) and 88 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 [hereafter referred to as "1972 Rules"].

5.2. On the other hand, Mr. Gaurang Kanth, who appears on advance notice on behalf of respondent no.1/UOI, says that, there is no good reason to intercede in the matter.

6. We have examined the record, after hearing Mr. Sinha and Mr. Kanth for a considerable period of time and concluded that, no interference is required for the reasons given hereafter.

7. However, before we proceed further, it would be relevant to advert to the following dates and events.

7.1. It is evident that, the petitioner has an excellent academic record. The petitioner is an alumnus of Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. He joined the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in 1999.

7.2. After nearly 6 years of service in the IAS, the petitioner tendered his resignation on 14.09.2005, which was accepted by respondent no.1, on 07.10.2005.

7.3. Two years hence, the petitioner made representations for being permitted to withdraw his resignation. Representations, in this behalf, were made by the petitioner on 23.08.2007 and 10.09.2007.

7.4. These representations were, however, rejected by respondent no.1 on 07.02.2008.

7.5. The reasons that the petitioner had furnished for being allowed to withdraw his resignation, were broadly, the following: his father had suffered from various medical complications, and he i.e. the petitioner suffered from mental health issues.

7.6. Suffice it to say that, thereafter, the petitioner commenced his battle to get back in service.

7.7. As a matter of fact, after the issuance of rejection order dated 07.02.2008, another order was passed by respondent no.1 on 28.10.2010, which reiterated the fact that, the petitioner's representation for withdrawal of resignation could not be accepted.

8. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Tribunal to agitate his cause. The petitioner's original application preferred with the Tribunal w