2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13233

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
S. Sujatha, J, B.K. Shrivastava, J, Santosh Mehra, Administrative Member
Manjunatha G R – Appellant
Versus
Central Silk Board – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00244/2025

A permanent employee holds an absolute right to resign, but the grant of a technical resignation is discretionary. Where an employee proceeds to seek external employment despite an express denial of permission based on documented administrative exigencies, the employer is justified in refusing the benefits associated with a technical resignation.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 26 - CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 - Rule 26 - Technical resignation - Right to resignation - Employment norms - A permanent employee has a right to resign, but technical resignation involving the retention of past service benefits is at the discretion of the employer - Where an employee fails to follow proper channels or seeks permission for external appointments despite explicit refusal by the competent authority, the employer is justified in denying the claim for a technical resignation based on administrative exigencies such as staff shortages. (Paras 16, 18, 22, 23)

(B) Administrative Law - Public Interest - Judicial Review - Validity of orders must be judged by the reasons mentioned therein - The subjective satisfaction of an employer regarding ‘public interest’ and organizational exigencies, such as maintaining scientific research continuity, is a matter of administrative discretion and cannot be interfered with unless found to be arbitrary or based on incorrect premises. (Paras 15, 23, 26)

Facts of the case:
An employee serving as a scientist in a research organization sought permission to apply for a higher-level post in another institution. The request was denied by the parent organization citing a shortage of scientific personnel. The employee proceeded with the external application process and interview without the required No Objection Certificate. Upon being selected for the new post, the employee submitted a technical resignation, which was rejected by the employer. The employee sought relief from the Tribunal, resulting in a difference of opinion between the members, leading to the appointment of a Third Member.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the employee knowingly bypassed official instructions by competing for the new post after being specifically denied permission. Evidence regarding the vacancy rate confirmed the organization was facing a significant shortfall in scientific staff. Thus, the employer's decision to deny the request for a technical resignation was based on valid administrative grounds and was not arbitrary. The employee was eventually relieved upon submitting a regular resignation.

Issues: Whether the rejection of the request for a technical resignation based on staff shortages and the lack of prior permission was legal and whether the employer was compelled to grant the same as a matter of right.

Ratio Decidendi: Technical resignation requires prior approval from the competent authority to protect the continuity of service. Since the employer established a legitimate concern regarding the shortage of specialized scientific staff, the denial of technical resignation was a valid exercise of administrative discretion. A permanent employee's right to normal resignation does not extend to an absolute right to claim a technical resignation, especially when the selection process was initiated in violation of official directives.

Result: Original Application dismissed.