Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Lavkush Kumar vs N.F.Railway on 12 March, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
Original Application No. 040/00170/2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SANJIV KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Shri Lavkush Kumar
S/o Shri Yogendra Singh
Trackman IV
O/o Sr. Section Engineer/P-Way/Lala
Bazar Section, Bhairabi Station, Mizoram.
R/o: Village-Birra, P.S. - Birra
P.S. - Makhdumpur
District - Jehanabad, Bihar, Pin - 804405.
...Applicant
By Advocates: Shri M. Chanda & Smt. U. Dutta
- Versus -
1. Union of India
Through General Manager
N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati
Assam, Pin - 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. Section Engineer/P-Way/Lala Bazar Section
Bhairabi Station, Mizoram, Pin-796081.
5. Chairman
Railway Recruitment Board, Patna
Mehendrughat, Patna-800004, Bihar.
PRASANNA Digitally
PRASANNA
BASUMATARYBASUMATARY
signed by
O.A. No.170/2025
2
6. Praveen Kumar Karn
Asstt. Personnel Officer/II/LMG
N.F. Railway, Lumding, Assam
Pin - 782447.
...Respondents
By Advocates: Sri A. Chakraborty, Addl. CGSC
For Res. Nos. 1 to 5
Date of Hearing: 24.02.2026 Date of Order: 12.03.2026
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 19.05.2025 (Annexure Al) be set aside and quashed so far the applicant is concerned.
8.2. The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2/3 to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the applicant for submission before the respondent no. 5 on 19.06.2025 in terms of letter dated 03.06.2025 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 counting of his past service under NF Railway w.e.f. 17.10.2019 for all purposes.
Or alternatively to direct the respondent no. 2 to accept the resignation submitted by the applicant on 09.06.2025 with a further direction upon the respondent no. 5 to consequently complete the selection process and appoint the applicant to PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by O.A. No.170/2025 3 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."
2. The applicant was initially appointed as Trackman IV on 17.10.2019 under Sr. Section Engineer/P-Way/Lala Bazar Section under Lumding Division, Lumding and he applied for the post of Technician Grade III (level 2) against Central Employment Notice (CEN) No. 02/2024 against RRB, Patna (Annexure-A/2). He qualified the Computer Based Test (CBT) and also completed the document verification. Vide letter dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure-A/9) applicant was directed to produce NOC from the employer by 18.05.2025. Applicant was further directed to submit the NOC from his employer to the respondent no. 5 on 19.06.2025 in terms of letter dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure-A/11) failing which, his candidature would be treated as cancelled and no further chance would be given to him. In the meantime, he also submitted applications dated 08.01.2025 and 04.04.2025 for grant of NOC (Annexure-A/4 and A/7) respectively, which have PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by O.A. No.170/2025 4 been rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 19.05.2025 in a vague and cryptic manner without even citing any reasons (Annexure-A/1). Finding no alternative, he submitted his resignation letter on 09.06.2025 before the respondents (Annexure-A/12).
3. Smt. U. Dutta, 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 order dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure-A/1). 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 18.06.2025, one post of Technician III under CEN No. 02/2024 is reserved by the RRB, Patna, thereby protecting the interest of the applicant. Learned counsel therefore, prays for a direction to the respondents-Railways to accept applicant's resignation. PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by O.A. No.170/2025 5
4. Shri A. Chakraborty, learned Addl. CGSC for the official respondent Nos. 1 to 5 submitted that pursuant to Centralized Employment Notice (CEN) No. 02/2024 dated 09.02.2024 issued by the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB), applicant applied for the post of Technician Grade-III (Level-2) and he was declared successful in the selection process vide result dated 18.03.2025 under RRB, Patna. In compliance with administrative procedure, applicant submitted a formal request for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) on 08.01.2025. However, the competent authority after assessing the prevailing staff strength and critical operational requirements in the Lalabazar jurisdiction, regretted the issuance of NOC on 19.05.2025 owing to the acute shortage of Track Maintainers in Lumding Division. As per the respondents, the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) Employment Notification No. 02/2024 was published on 09.02.2024 and the written examination for Technician Grade-III was conducted between 20.12.2024 and 30.12.2024. The applicant appeared in the said examination without applying for obtaining prior NOC from the competent authority, which is a mandatory PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by O.A. No.170/2025 6 requirement under extant rules. Applicant subsequently, applied for NOC only on 08.01.2025 i.e. after appearing in the examination and the same was carefully examined by the competent authority and subsequently rejected vide Order dated 19.05.2025. As per the respondents, denial of NOC is 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 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. In reply to that, applicant, in his rejoinder, stated that he applied for NOC in SSE/P-WAY/LLBR while filing the PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by O.A. No.170/2025 7 Application Form itself prior to 08.01.2025. But no receipt was provided to him. In fact, no one was provided any receipt upon applying for NOC and there are evidences that the NOC letters were later on torn down and used for official or other such rough work. When he searched for his initial NOC update, he could not find it either in LLBR office or in LMG Division. Finding no other alternative, applicant again applied for NOC on 08.01.2025, which is on record.
As per the applicant, it is out and out a false statement on the part of the respondents that the applicant did not apply for NOC before appearing in the Selection process in the other Zone.
6. Applicant further 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 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by O.A. No.170/2025 8 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 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.
7. We have heard Smt. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri A. Chakraborty, learned Addl. CGSC for the official respondent Nos. 1 to 5. None appeared on behalf of the private respondent No. 6.
8. Railway authorities have rejected the application submitted by the applicant on 08.01.2025 for NOC and subsequent letter dated 04.04.2025 requesting for NOC after qualifying written examination and compelled the PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by O.A. No.170/2025 9 applicant to file his resignation on 09.06.2025. 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 for NOC was made after passing of result of examination, while rejecting the said representation. The respondent authorities now cannot go back and assert that the applicant had appeared in the Examination without obtaining NOC.
9. 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 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by O.A. No.170/2025 10 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."
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.
10. 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. PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by O.A. No.170/2025 11 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.
11. Admittedly, impugned order dated 19.05.2025 was passed rejecting the prayer for NOC of the applicant in a cryptic manner without giving any reason.
12. 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 held 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 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by O.A. No.170/2025 12 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 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)
13. In case of State of Rajasthan vs Rajendra Prasad Jain (2008) 15 SCC 711, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by O.A. No.170/2025 13 that 'reasons is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless'.
14. 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 by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 4425/2025 and Hon'ble High Court had already held that shortage of staff is not a valid ground to withheld resignation of an employee.
15. 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."
PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by O.A. No.170/2025 14
16. However, 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 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 the NOC. The decision in Sanjay Jain (Supra) is squarely attracted in this case.
17. In view of the above, the impugned communication No. E/283/III/LM(E) dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure A-1) is quashed, so far the applicant is concerned.
18. Respondents are directed to accept the resignation submitted by the applicant on 09.06.2025 (Annexure-A/12) forthwith with a further direction upon the respondent No. 5 (Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Patna, Bihar) to complete the selection process and appoint the applicant to the post of Technician Grade III (Level 2) under RRB CEN No. 02/2024, if he is otherwise PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by O.A. No.170/2025 15 eligible, on the basis of such resignation without the benefit of past service.
19. A copy of this order be supplied to the learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents for onward transmission and to ensure compliance.
20. O.A. is partly allowed.
21. Pending M.As, if any, also stand disposed of.
22. No order as to costs.
(SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
PB
PRASANNA Digitally
PRASANNA
BASUMATARYBASUMATARY
signed by
O.A. No.170/2025