Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6681

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, Sanjiv Kumar, Administrative Member
Ashish Das – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 040/00253/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Chanda, U. Dutta, K. Dutta, B. Boragohain
For the Respondents: None

An employee possesses an inherent right to resign from service, which cannot be unilaterally denied by the employer based on groundless assertions of staff shortage or operational exigencies absent specific statutory prohibitions or pending disciplinary proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal - Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) - Para 1401 - Resignation from service - Right of employee to resign - Rejection of resignation on grounds of staff shortage - Whether valid - The Court held that an employee has a right to resign unless there are specific stipulations in the rules or disciplinary proceedings are pending - Holding an employee against their will cannot be justified solely on the ground of staff shortage - Orders rejecting NOC and resignation must be supported by reasons - Absence of reasons renders administrative orders unsustainable - Principles of natural justice demand disclosure of reasons for rejection - (Paras 10, 13, 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, an employee in the Railways, sought a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and subsequently tendered his resignation to join a higher post (Technician-III) for which he was selected. The department rejected his application for NOC and his resignation, citing staff shortage and operational exigencies. The applicant challenged these rejections before the Tribunal.

Findings of Court:
The tribunal found the rejection orders to be cryptic and devoid of reasons. Adopting the principle of natural justice, the tribunal ruled that administrative orders must record reasons. Relying on judicial precedents, the court affirmed that the right to resign cannot be unilaterally withheld by the employer without valid statutory grounds such as pending disciplinary proceedings or specific binding rules.

Issues: Whether the Railway authority was justified in rejecting the applicant's resignation and NOC on the ground of staff shortage and whether an employer can force an employee to remain in service against their will.

Ratio Decidendi: An employee's right to resign is a personal right that cannot be curtailed by the employer's plea of staff shortage unless specific rules or pending disciplinary proceedings preclude such resignation. Furthermore, administrative orders rejecting such requests must be reasoned, as per principles of natural justice and established judicial precedent.

Result: Original Application is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed, and the respondents are directed to accept the applicant's resignation without the benefit of past service.

Table of Content
1. applicant seeks to resign to accept a higher position after being refused nocs by the respondent railways. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties contest the validity of resignation refusal based on staff shortage versus the right to resign. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. administrative orders rejecting resignation must provide reasons; staff shortage is not a valid ground to prevent resignation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. impugned orders quashed; respondents directed to accept resignation without past service benefits. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

ORDER

PER MR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A):

The instant O.A. has been preferred by the applicant seeking the following relief(s):

8.1. Impugned order dated 06.02.2025 (Annexure A1) as well as impugned order dated 04.08.2025 (Annexure A2) be set aside and quashed so far the applicant is concerned.

8.2. The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to accept the technical resignation of the applicant submitted on 01.08.2025 and release him immediately to join the post of Technician-III/Tele immediately pursuant to offer of appointment letter dated 17.07.2025(Annexure ) issued by the Railway Recruitment Board, Kolkata Easter Railway vide letter no Cell/RRB/Tech./02-2024/SDAH dated 17.07.2025 with immediate effect without any further delay and further be pleased to grant any other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case.

2. The applicant was initially appointed as Trackman IV on 13.10.2019 under Sr. Section Engineer/P-Way/New Haflong under Lumding Division, Lumding and he applied for the post of Technician Grade III (level 2) against Central Employment Notice (CEN) No. 02/2024 dated 09.03.2024 against RRB, Kolkata. He was called for document verification and medical examination vide letter dated 04.04.2025. Applicant submitted his applications for grant of NOC on 09.04.2024 as well as 26.03.2025. However, same were rejected vide letter dated 06.02.2025 as well as vide order dated 04.08.2025 in a vague and cryptic manner without even citing any reasons (Annexure-A/1).

3. As per the applicant, he successfully completed the task of document verification and medical examination and thereafter, offer of appointment letter was issued provisionally to the applicant on 17.07.2025 wherein 30 days time was granted for joining from the date of the receipt of the offer of appointment letter. Finding no alternative, he submitted his resignation letter on 01.08.2025 before the respondents which has not been considered till date.

4. Shri M. Chanda, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents-Railway had arbitrarily and without application of mind, rejected applicant’s prayer for NOC by cryptic orders dated 06.02.2025 and 04.08.2025 (Annexure-A/1 & A/2 respectively). The applicant is now in level 1 and the post for which he has been selected is at level 2, which is higher than present status and rank. However, his appointment as Technician Grade-III is held up due to rejection of his prayer for NOC. According to the learned counsel, only because of interim order of this Tribunal dated 26.08.2025, one post of Technician III/Tele under Sr. DSTE/SDAH in S&T Department is reserved by the RRB, Kolkata, thereby protecting the interest of the applicant. Learned counsel therefore, prays for a direction to the respondents Railways to accept applicant’s resignation.

5. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed written statement wherein the stated that pursuant to Centralized Employment Notice (CEN) No. 02/2024 dated 09.03.2024 issued by the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB), applicant applied and appeared in the examination held in December 2024. On 19.03.2025, he was declared selected/empanelled for Technician Grade-III under RRB Kolkata. He initially applied for NOC on 09.04.2024, which was regretted due to staff shortage. Therefore, he again applied for NOC on 26.03.2025 but the Competent Authority regretted the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6681

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALRajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, Sanjiv Kumar, Administrative MemberAshish Das – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOriginal Application No. 040/00253/2025

An employee possesses an inherent right to resign from service, which cannot be unilaterally denied by the employer based on groundless assertions of staff shortage or operational exigencies absent specific statutory prohibitions or pending disciplinary proceedings.

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, Sanjiv Kumar, Administrative Member
Ashish Das – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 040/00253/2025