Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Shri Rahul Kumar vs N.F.Railway on 12 March, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
Original Application No. 040/181/2025
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR SANJIV KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Shri Rahul Kumar
S/o Dori Lal
Trackman IV
O/o Sr. Section Engineer/P-Way/ New Harangajao
New Harangajao Railway Station,
Dima Hasao District, Assam, Pin-788818
.......Applicant
-AND-
1. The Union of India
Through General Manager,
N.F. Railway, Maligaon,
Guwahati-781011, Assam
2. The Divisional Railway Manager(P)
Lumding, N.F. Railway, Lumding,
Assam, Pin-782447
3. Asstt. Personnel Officer/II/LMG
N. F. Railway, Lumding, Assam, Pin-782447
4. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer
N. F. Railway, Lumding, Assam, Pin-782447.
5. Sr. Section Engineer/P-Way/ New Harangajao
New Harangajao Railway Station,
Dima Hasao District
Assam, Pin 788818.
NENGDEILHEN SINGSITDigitally
SINGSIT
signed by NENGDEILHEN
O.A. No/040/181/2025
2
6. Chairman
Railway Recruitment Board Chandigarh
Railway Colony, Near Railway Station Chandigarh,
Pin 160002.
---Respondents
Present:
For applicant(s): Sri M. Chanda, Mrs. U. Dutta
Ms. R. Bharali, Mr. K. Dutta
For respondents: Sri A. Kundu, Addl. CGSC
Date of hearing 24.02.2026 Date of Order: 12.03.2026
ORDER
PER: MR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A):
This application has been preferred to seek the following relief:
8.1 Impugned order dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure A1) be set aside and quashed so far the applicant is concerned.
8.2. The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the issue No Objection respondent Certificate (NOC) to the applicant for submission before the respondent no. 6 by 25.06.2025 or on any subsequent date for appointment to the post of Technician Grade III under RRB CEN No. 02/2024, with all consequential benefits including appointment and counting of his past service w.e.f. 08.12.2023 for all purposes.
Or alternatively to direct the respondent no. 2 to accept the resignation submitted by the applicant on 12.05.2025 and 29.05.2025 with a further direction upon the respondent no. 6 to consequently complete the selection process and appoint the applicant to the post of Technician Grade III under RRB CEN No. 02/2024 on the basis of such resignation, with all consequential benefits including transfer of NPS account. 8.3. Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case. NENGDEILHEN SINGSITDigitally SINGSIT signed by NENGDEILHEN O.A. No/040/181/2025 3
2. The applicant was initially appointed as Trackman IV on 08.12.2023 under Sr. Section Engineer/P-Way/Harangajao under Lumding Division. He applied for the post of Technician Grade III (level 2) against Central Employment Notice (CEN) no. 02/2024 against RRB, Guwahati. He qualified the Computer Based Test (CBT) and also completed the document verification but could not submit the NOC from his employer on 16.04.2025, 01.05.2025 and also on 16.06.2025 and is due to submit the same to the respondent no. 6 by 25.06.2025. He submitted application for grant of NOC on 23.03.2025 (Annexure A/5) which have been rejected vide impugned order dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure A-1). Finding no alternative, he submitted his resignation letter on 12.05.2025 and 29.05.2025 (Annexure A/9 & A/11), which have not yet been accepted by the respondents.
3. Smt. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents-Railway had arbitrarily and without application of mind, rejected his NOC by a cryptic order. His resignation letter on 12.05.2025 and 29.05.2025 (Annexure A/9 NENGDEILHEN SINGSITDigitally SINGSIT signed by NENGDEILHEN O.A. No/040/181/2025 4 & A/11) has also not considered. His appointment as Technician Grade III (Level 2) is held up due to non-consideration of his prayer for resignation. According to the learned counsel, only because of interim order of this Tribunal dated 24.06.2025, one post of Technician Grade III under CEN No. 04/2024 is reserved by the RRB Guwahati. Learned counsel therefore, prays for a direction to the respondents-Railways to accept applicant's resignation.
4. Sri A. Kundu, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents submitted that applicant is working was initially appointed as Track Maintainer Grade -IV and posted under the administrative control of Senior Section Engineer (Permanent Way) New Harangajao Assam. His assigned duties are of a safety critical nature, involving routine patrolling, inspection and maintenance of track infrastructure - vital for ensuring secure train operations in strategically sensitive and underdeveloped areas of Hill Section of Lumding-New Haflong- New Harangajao-Badarpur section. He applied for the post of Technical Grade -III (level -2) issued under CEN NO. 02/2024 and appeared in the said examination on 30.12.2024 and applied for NOC only on NENGDEILHEN SINGSITDigitally SINGSIT signed by NENGDEILHEN O.A. No/040/181/2025 5 23.03.2025 after being selected in the Examination. As per extant rules, applying for obtaining prior NOC from the competent authority is a mandatory requirement. The NOC application was regretted by the competent authority due to operational exigencies and acute staff shortage vide order dated 04.04.2025. Thereafter, he submitted technical resignation on 12.05.2025 and 29.05.2025 citing personal grounds and medical conditions of his parents. As per the respondents in their written statement, after carefully review, the technical resignation application was regretted on 18.07.2025.
As per the respondents, denial of NOC and rejection of resignation are consistent with the following statutory and administrative provisions:
Railway Board's Master Circular No. 21/2019, which empowers the competent authority to decline NOC when public interest and service exigencies so warrant;
Rule 302 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC), Vol. I, which governs the conditions for acceptance or refusal of resignation from service;
Para 1401 of the Indian Railway Establishment discretionary authority to withhold resignation NENGDEILHEN SINGSITDigitally SINGSIT signed by NENGDEILHEN O.A. No/040/181/2025 6 based on safety concerns or operational grounds.
As per the respondents, the aforesaid provisions collectively affirm that resignation is not an absolute right of the employee and may be declined when it adversely affects public service delivery or jeopardizes safety.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant in the rejoinder, stated that Master Circular No. 21/2019 deals with "Resignation from Railway Service" and not with NOC. As per the applicant, he is neither engaged in a time bound project nor he is facing any departmental proceeding. The statutory rules of IREC/IREM postulates for rejection of resignation only in cases, where the conduct of Railway servant is under investigation. As such, there is no impediment on the part of the respondents to accept the resignation of the applicant and spare the applicant for his new assignment.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is the settled position of law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Jain Vs. National Aviation Co. Of India Ltd (2019) 14 NENGDEILHEN SINGSITDigitally SINGSIT signed by NENGDEILHEN O.A. No/040/181/2025 7 SCC 492 that - to resign is a right of employee who cannot be forced to serve in case he is not willing until and unless there is some stipulation in the Rules and in the terms of appointment or disciplinary proceedings is pending or contemplated which is sought to be avoided by resigning from the services.
6. We have heard Smt. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri A. Kundu, learned Addl. CGSC for the official respondents.
7. Railway authorities rejected the application submitted by the applicant on 23.03.2025 requesting for NOC to appear as Technician III under CEN No. 02/2024. The respondent authorities upon considering the application for NOC, have passed a cryptic order and has not made any reference to the fact that application has been made after the applicant has appeared in the examination while rejecting the said representation. The respondent authorities cannot go back and assert that the applicant had appeared in the Examination without obtaining NOC. NENGDEILHEN SINGSITDigitally SINGSIT signed by NENGDEILHEN O.A. No/040/181/2025 8
8. Rule 1401 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol. I dated 27.02.1979 itself is very liberal, which says as follows:
"1401. Railway employees may be given 4 opportunities in a year to apply in response to notices of Government Departments/Public Sector Undertakings/autonomous bodies wholly or substantially financed and controlled by Central or State Government except where holding of any such applications is considered justified in the public interest by the competent authority. Applications in response to UPSC advertisement will not be counted against the four opportunities mentioned above.
Note: The authorities should interpret the term 'public interest' strictly subject to the condition that forwarding of application should be the rule rather than the exception. In taking the decision to withhold the application the competent authority has to balance the interest of the state against the necessity of causing hardship to the individual. This discretion should be applied with utmost objectivity and not mechanically. While it is not feasible to lay down the specific exhaustive guidelines for withholding of applications, some of them can be listed illustratively as follows:-
(1) The Railway employee is engaged on important time-bound projects and the work would be seriously dislocated if he is relieved.
(ii) A railway employee is under suspension or is facing departmental proceedings/prosecution in a Court.
(iii) A railway employee is applying for a post which is equivalent in status and rank."
NENGDEILHEN SINGSITDigitally SINGSIT signed by NENGDEILHEN O.A. No/040/181/2025 9 It is clear from the facts placed on record that the applicant does not fall in any of the above three conditions in the said Circular.
9. We have also perused OM of the Department of Personnel & Training dated 17.08.2016 regarding Technical Resignation wherein at para 2.1.1, it is stated that - "The resignation will be treated as technical resignation if these conditions are met, even if the Government servant has not mentioned the word "Technical" while submitting his resignation. The benefit of past service, if otherwise admissible under rules, may be given in such cases. Resignation in other cases including where competent authority has not allowed the Government servant to forward the application through proper channel will not be treated as a technical resignation and benefit of past service will not be admissible.
10. Admittedly, the impugned order dated order 04.04.2025 (Annexure A-1) was passed rejecting the prayer for grant of NOC in a cryptic manner without giving any reasons. NENGDEILHEN SINGSITDigitally SINGSIT signed by NENGDEILHEN O.A. No/040/181/2025 10
11. An order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice. Highlighting this rule, the Hon'ble Apex court in the matter of the Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Ors., JT 2010(2)SC 566 para 31 and 33 is as under:
"31. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of an order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration justice - delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of principles of natural justice. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before Courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the Court concerned had really applied its mind. " [Vide State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar (JT 2004(2) SC 172 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. JT 2004 (5) SCC 338:2004 (5) SCC 573].
32. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further NENGDEILHEN SINGSITDigitally SINGSIT signed by NENGDEILHEN O.A. No/040/181/2025 11 challenge before a higher forum. [Vide Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 4664; Vishnu Dev Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 172; Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407; State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi AIR 2008 SC 2026; U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR 2009 SC 2328; Ram Phal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 258; Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Faij Mohammad & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 513; and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sada Ram & Anr. (2009) 4 SCC 422].
33. Thus, it is evident that the recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected may know, as why his application has been rejected."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. In case of State of Rajasthan vs Rajendra Prasad Jain (2008) 15 SCC 711, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that 'reasons is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless'.
13. In the reply, the respondents took the stand that the request of the applicant for resigning from services as Trackman IV was regretted in public interest and acute shortage of staff. This ground has already been considered NENGDEILHEN SINGSITDigitally SINGSIT signed by NENGDEILHEN O.A. No/040/181/2025 12 by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 4425/2025 wherein the Hon'ble High Court had already held that shortage of staff is not a valid ground to withheld resignation of an employee.
14. In Civil Appeal No. 7822/2011 and 10881/2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27491/2017) in the case of Sanjay Jain Vs. National Aviation Co. of India Ltd., Hon'ble Apex Court has held that -"To resign is a right of an employee who cannot be forced to serve in case he is not willing until and unless there is some stipulation in the Rules or in the terms of appointment or disciplinary proceedings is pending or contemplated which is sought to be avoided by resigning from the services."
15. Applicant applied for the post of Technical Grade
-III (level -2) issued under CEN NO. 02/2024 and appeared in the said examination on 30.12.2024 and applied for NOC only on 23.03.2025. As the applicant has not been able to establish that he applied for NOC before appearing in the examination, his resignation cannot be treated as technical NENGDEILHEN SINGSITDigitally SINGSIT signed by NENGDEILHEN O.A. No/040/181/2025 13 resignation and benefits of the past service will not be admissible in terms of DOPT OM dated 17.08.2016. This case is covered under the category of resignation as the competent authority has not allowed NOC. The decision in Sanjay Jain (Supra) is squarely attracted in this case.
16. In view of the above, the impugned communication dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure A/1) is quashed.
17. Respondents are directed to accept the resignation submitted by the applicant on 12.05.2025 and 29.05.2025 forthwith with a further direction upon the respondent No. 6 (Chairman, Chairman Railway Recruitment Board Chandigarh, Railway Colony, Near Railway Station Chandigarh) to complete the selection process and appoint the applicant to the post of Technician III with condition that the applicant won't have any lien over the current post he is occupying after joining as Technician Grade III under RRB CEN No. 02/2024, if he is otherwise NENGDEILHEN SINGSITDigitally SINGSIT signed by NENGDEILHEN O.A. No/040/181/2025 14 eligible, on the basis of such resignation without the benefit of past service.
18. A copy of this order be supplied to the learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents for onward transmission and to ensure compliance.
19. O.A is partly allowed.
20. Pending M.As, if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.
(SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
SS
NENGDEILHEN SINGSITDigitally
SINGSIT
signed by NENGDEILHEN
O.A. No/040/181/2025