Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anil Kshetarpal, Amit Mahajan, JJ
Shishir Priyadarshi – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 2491/2026 | W.P.(C) 2498/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vimal Kirti Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, Ms. Nasreen Khatoon, Mr. Farman Ali, Ms. Usha Jamnal

A notice for voluntary retirement must be clear, unequivocal, and unconditional to be valid under service rules. A contingent or alternative request for retirement fails to satisfy statutory requirements, justifying an employer's action to declare a deemed resignation due to prolonged, unauthorized absence from duty.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Service Law - Voluntary Retirement - Notice requirements - A notice for voluntary retirement must be clear, unequivocal, and unconditional to be valid under the relevant statutory rules; a request couched in the alternative or contingent upon the denial of other relief does not satisfy the statutory mandate. (Paras 54-55)

(B) Administrative Law - Civil Services - Deemed Resignation - Unauthorized Absence - Failure to report for duty after the conclusion of a foreign assignment or sanctioned leave, despite repeated opportunities, permits the employer to invoke provisions for deemed resignation based on prolonged absence. (Paras 59, 61)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, who were members of a civil service, remained absent from duty after the conclusion of their authorized foreign assignment and subsequent leave periods. Despite multiple directives from the authorities to rejoin their parent cadre, the petitioners requested extensions and, alternatively, sought voluntary retirement in conditional terms. The authorities rejected the requests to return at a later date and did not process the conditional retirement applications. Subsequently, the petitioners were declared as having deemed to have resigned due to prolonged unauthorized absence. The petitioners challenged this before the administrative tribunal, which upheld the decision, leading to the present petitions.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the request for voluntary retirement was not a valid notice as it was conditional and lacked the clear, unequivocal intention required by the rules. The court further found that the administrative action of declaring a deemed resignation was consistent with the mandate of the service rules regarding unauthorized absence, especially after providing adequate opportunities to the individuals to resume their duties.

Issues: The main issues were whether a conditional or alternative request for voluntary retirement constitutes a valid notice under the applicable service rules and whether the declaration of deemed resignation due to prolonged unauthorized absence was legally justified.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory requirements for voluntary retirement necessitate a clear, unambiguous, and unconditional expression of intent from a member of the service. A contingent request fails to trigger the legal mechanism of voluntary retirement. Consequently, persistent absence from duty without valid authorization allows the employer to invoke the deemed resignation clause after providing a reasonable opportunity for the employee to respond or resume service.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. consolidation of writ petitions and definition of the central legal issue. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. factual history regarding shishir priyadarshi’s unauthorized absence and representation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
3. factual history regarding atul bagai’s unauthorized absence and service history. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
4. conflicting arguments concerning the validity of voluntary retirement notices versus deemed resignation. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
5. requirement of clear, unconditional, and compliant notice for valid voluntary retirement. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 60)
6. legal sufficiency of invoking deemed resignation for unauthorized absences. (Para 58 , 59 , 61)
7. dismissal of petitions upholding original administrative orders. (Para 62 , 63)

INTRODUCTION:

1. The Petitioner, by way of the present Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks the issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the final order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CAT’] in O.A. Nos.490/2016 and 497/2016.

2. With the consent of learned counsel representing the parties, two connected Writ Petitions involving an identical issue shall stand disposed of by this common order. In fact, the CAT also disposed of two O.As by a common order vide treating the case of Shishir Priyadarshi as the lead case.

3. The central question which arises for consideration is whether the Petitioners can be held to have validly sought voluntary retirement under Rule 16(2) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, so as to defeat the action taken by the Respondents under Rule 7(2)(c) of the All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955 declaring them as deemed to have resigned from service on account of prolonged unauthorized absence. This is in light of the fact that Shishir Priyadarshi and Atul Bagai were absent from their respective duties effectively from 01.06.2006 and 23.08.2005 respectively.

BRIEF FACTS IN W.P.(C) 2491/2026:

4. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts are being noticed from W.P.(C) 2491/2026, which is being treated as the lead case.

5. The Petitioner is a member of the 1980 batch of the Indian Administrative Service, allotted to the Uttar Pradesh cadre.

6. On 17.01.2001, the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (‘ACC’) approved the proposal for grant of cadre clearance to the Petitioner for a foreign assignment with the South Centre, Geneva, supported by the United Nations Development Programme (‘UNDP’), for a period of two years commencing from January 2001, under Foreign Service terms, in relaxation of the requirement of a cooling-off period between two long-term foreign assignments.

7. Upon completion of the initial tenure, the Petitioner sought extension, which was granted, and his deputation stood extended up to 31.05.2006.

8. Prior to the expiry of the extended tenure, the Petitioner submitted a request dated 25.04.2006 seeking further extension for a period of two years with effect from 01.06.2006. The Department of Personnel and Training (‘DoPT’) sought the comments of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh in this regard.

9. The Petitioner reiterated his request for extension vide communication dated 13.10.2006. However, the ACC did not approve the proposal for further extension. This decision was communicated to the Petitioner on 21.03.2007, with a direction to report back to his parent cadre within one month, failing which appropriate action would follow.

10. Despite the aforesaid direction, the Petitioner did not report back to duty. The State Government issued communications, including letter dated 08.07.2007, directing him to join within one month, failing whic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIAnil Kshetarpal, Amit Mahajan, JJShishir Priyadarshi – AppellantVersusUnion Of India – RespondentW.P.(C) 2491/2026 | W.P.(C) 2498/2026

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anil Kshetarpal, Amit Mahajan, JJ
Shishir Priyadarshi – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 2491/2026 | W.P.(C) 2498/2026