Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Shri Manikant Kumar vs N.F.Railway on 12 March, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
Original Application No. 040/00180/2025
Date of order: This, the 12th day of March 2026
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SANJIV KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Shri Manikant Kumar
S/o Shri Makeshwar Mahto
Trackman IV
O/o Sr. Section Engineer/P-Way/Ambassa
Mungiakami Station, Khowai District
Tripura, Pin-799289
...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. Divisional Engineer/C/Lumding
N.F. Railway, Lumding, Assam, Pin-782447.
5. Sr. Section Engineer/P-Way/Ambassa
Mungiakami Station, Khowai District
Tripura, Pin-799289.
O.A. No.180/2025
PRASANNA Digitally
PRASANNA
signed by
BASUMATARYBASUMATARY
2
6. Chairman
Railway Recruitment Board, Bilaspur
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Pin-495004.
...Respondents
By Advocates: Sri A. Kundu, Addl. CGSC
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 15.05.2025 (Annexure- A/1) be set aside and quashed.
8.2. The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the issue No Objection respondent no. 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. 05.07.2023 for all purposes.
Or alternatively to direct the respondent no. 2 to accept the resignation submitted by the applicant on 07.05.2025 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 O.A. No.180/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 3 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 05.07.2023 at Ahmedabad Division of Western Railway and joined Lumding Division on mutual transfer on 14.02.2025 under Sr. Section Engineer/P-Way/Ambassa, Mungiakami Station. He applied for the post of Technician Grade III (level 2) against Central Employment Notice (CEN) no. 02/2024 against RRB, Bilaspur, Chhatisgarh (Annexure-A/2). He qualified the Computer Based Test (CBT) and also completed the document verification. Vide letter dated 19.04.2025 (Annexure-A/6) applicant was requested for NOC for submission before the document verification under RRB Bilashpur CEN NO. 02/2024. Applicant was further directed to submit the NOC from his employer by 25.06.2025, failing which, his appointment would be treated as cancelled. Finding no alternative, he submitted his resignation letter on 07.05.2025 to be effective from 12.05.2025 before the respondents (Annexure-A/8).
O.A. No.180/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 4
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 resignation by cryptic order dated 15.05.2025 (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 resignation. According to the learned counsel, only because of interim order of this Tribunal dated 24.06.2025, one post of Technician III under CEN No. 02/2024 is reserved by the RRB, Bilaspur, thereby protecting the interest of the applicant. Learned counsel therefore, prays for a direction to the respondents-Railways to accept applicant's resignation.
4. Shri A. Kundu, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents submitted that pursuant to Centralized Employment Notice (CEN) No. 02/2024 dated 09.02.2024 issued by the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB), applicant appeared for the written examination held on 24.12.2024 O.A. No.180/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 5 for the post of Technician Grade-III (Level-2) and he was declared successful as per result declared on 12.03.2025. The applicant, however, failed to obtain a No Objection Certificate from his parent division (Ahmedabad Division) prior to applying or appearing in the examination, which is a mandatory procedural requirement under extant Railway Board instructions. But only after the declaration of result on 12.03.2025, applicant submitted an application for NOC on 19.04.2025 and the same was withheld by the competent authority due to operational exigencies and acute staff shortage in the Ambassa Section. Thereafter, applicant submitted his resignation on 07.05.2025 (Annexure-A/8) citing personal grounds including medical condition of his mother and the same was carefully reviewed by the Administration and subsequently, regretted on 15.05.2025 (Annexure-A/1). 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 O.A. No.180/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 6 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 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 O.A. No.180/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 7 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.
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 did not take any action on application submitted by the applicant on 19.04.2025 for NOC after qualifying written examination compelling the applicant to file his resignation letter on 07.05.2025. The respondent authorities upon considering said application, O.A. No.180/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 8 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.
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 O.A. No.180/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 9 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.
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 O.A. No.180/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 10 treated as a technical resignation and benefit of past service will not be admissible.
10. Admittedly, impugned order dated 15.05.2025 was passed rejecting the prayer for resignation of the applicant in a cryptic manner without giving any reason.
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 are 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 O.A. No.180/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 11 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)
12. In case of State of Rajasthan vs Rajendra Prasad Jain (2008) 15 SCC 711, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held O.A. No.180/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 12 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 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.
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."
O.A. No.180/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 13
15. 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.
16. In view of the above, the impugned communication No. E/283/Engg/LM/RR/Pt-I dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure A-1) is quashed.
17. Respondents are directed to accept the resignation submitted by the applicant on 07.05.2025 (Annexure-A/8) forthwith with a further direction upon the respondent No. 6 (Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh) to complete the selection process and appoint the applicant to the post of Technician Grade III under RRB CEN NO. 02/2024, if he is otherwise eligible, on O.A. No.180/2025 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA signed by BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 14 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.
21. No order as to costs.
(SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
PB
O.A. No.180/2025
PRASANNA Digitally
PRASANNA
signed by
BASUMATARYBASUMATARY