SANDEEP GROVER vs POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESARCH

Court
Central Administrative Tribunal

​ ​ ​ ​ 1 ​ (O.A.No.060/840/2026)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.No.060/840/2026
th
Chandigarh, the 14 day of October, 2026
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
Sandeep Grover aged about 53 years, S/o Late Sh. Ramesh Chand
Grover, R/o House No.126A, Near Indira Holiday Home, Sector-24A,
Chandigarh. (Class I employee) (Presently working as Professor in
PGIMER, Chandigarh)
...Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Lalit Rishi
VERSUS
1. Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research
(P.G.I.M.E.R.), Chandigarh, Madhya Marg Sector-12, Chandigarh through
its Registrar.
2. The Director, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research
(P.G.I.M.E.R.), Chandigarh, Madhya Marg Sector-12, Chandigarh.
3. President, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research
(P.G.I.M.E.R.), Chandigarh, Madhya Marg Sector-12, Chandigarh.
4. Sr. Administrative Officer (F), Postgraduate Institute of Medical
Education and Research (P.G.I.M.E.R.), Chandigarh, Madhya Marg
Sector-12, Chandigarh.
…Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Sanyam Malhotra

O R D E R
Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):
1. ​ The present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeks quashing of impugned order
dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure A-14) and impugned order dated
09.05.2026 (Annexure A-18) passed by Respondent No.4 and also
against the action of the respondents in not relieving the applicant in
2026.10.22
14:40:18
SHIVAM
+05'30'
pursuance to his application for voluntary retirement/ resignation despite
lapse of Notice Period of 90 days. The applicant has prayed for reliefs as
under:
“8. RELIEF SOUGHT;

​ ​ ​ ​ 2 ​ (O.A.No.060/840/2026)

xxx
(i) quash impugned order dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure A14) and
impugned order dated 09.05.2026 (Annexure A18) passed by Respondent
No.4 in light of submission made above in the present OA.
(ii) quash the action of the respondents in not relieving the applicant upon
expiry of the notice period of 03 months as submitted by the applicant
vide application dated 18.02.2026 (A-13) being opposed to the applicable
service rules and also being opposed to public policy as no one can be
compelled to work as bonded laborer.
(iii) quash Explanation "C" to the above Rule 12 (1) of CCS (INPS) Rules,
2021 being is illegal and arbitrary and in direct violation of law settled
upto the Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments which provides that
the service rendered on casual, ad-hoc or contract basis followed by
regularization is to be counted towards qualifying service for the purpose
of pension.
(iv) direct the respondents to consider the applicant eligible for Voluntary
Retirement w.e.f. lapse of 03 months notice as submitted by the applicant
vide application dated 18.02.2026 (A-13) and to process his case for
grant/ release of Old Pension under "Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules,
1972" as per his entitlement by taking into consideration the period of
Senior Residency w.e.f. 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2005 and Adhoc service
from 24.04.2006 to 09.01.2008 as Assistant Professor towards the
qualifying service in light of Instructions dated 02.06.1992 (Annexure
A-19) issued by Government of India.
(v) OR IN ALTERNATE to consider the applicant eligible for Voluntary
Retirement w.e.f. lapse of 03 months' notice as submitted by the
applicant vide application dated 18.02.2026 (A-13) and to process his
case for grant/ release of Pension under "Central Civil Services
(Implementation of National Pension System) Rules, 2021" as per his
entitlement by taking into consideration the period of Senior Residency
w.e.f. 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2005 and Adhoc service from 24.04.2006 to
09.01.2008 as Assistant Professor towards the qualifying service in light
of Instructions dated 02.06.1992 (Annexure A-19) issued by Government
of India.
2026.10.22
14:40:18
SHIVAM
+05'30'
(vi) OR IN ALTERNATE to accept the resignation of the applicant w.e.f.
lapse of 03 months notice as submitted by the applicant vide application
dated 18.02.2026 (A13).

​ ​ ​ ​ 3 ​ (O.A.No.060/840/2026)

(vii) exempt the applicant from filing the certified copies of the annexures
and allow the applicant to place on record the true typed/ photocopies of
the same.
(viii) direct the respondents to produce the original records of the case.
(ix) issue any other appropriate order, or direction that this Hon'ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of this case.
(x) cost of the application be awarded in favor of the applicant. “
2. ​ During the course of arguments on 09.10.2026, learned counsel for
the applicant submitted that the applicant does not wish to press the
relief clause contained in para Nos. 8(iii), 8(iv) and 8(v) of this OA. The
said relief clauses, which pertain to applicant’s claim towards voluntary
retirement, are dropped accordingly.
3. ​ Facts of the case in brief are that the applicant was initially selected
as Junior Resident in PGIMER w.e.f. 01.01.2000, and over the years has
been appointed as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and finally as
Professor w.e.f. 12.05.2017, on which post the applicant is working till
date. Service particulars have been appended as Annexures A-1 to A-5.
4. ​ It is submitted that the applicant sought a No Objection Certificate
to undertake an assignment as Specialist Consultant Psychiatrist at
Northern Health, Melbourne, Australia, to obtain fellowship of the Royal
College of Psychiatry, and applied for two years Ex-India leave. The
respondents subsequently issued an NOC dated 10.02.2023 (Annexure
A-7) and sanctioned one year of Ex-India Extraordinary Leave vide order
dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure A-7A). Representation dated 24.08.2024
(Annexure A-8) moved by the applicant seeking two years leave or
alternatively at least 18 months was not accepted. He was ultimately
permitted to undertake the foreign assignment for one year vide order
2026.10.22
14:40:18
SHIVAM
+05'30'
dated 13.11.2024 (Annexure A-9), and vide order dated 27.01.2025 the
applicant was permitted to join w.e.f. 03.02.2025 and Earned Leave from
28.01.2025 to 01.02.2025 was sanctioned (Annexure A-10).
5. ​ The applicant sought further six months Ex-India leave from
03.02.2026 to 02.08.2026 vide application dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure

​ ​ ​ ​ 4 ​ (O.A.No.060/840/2026)

A-11). Extension was not granted to the applicant, and he returned and
submitted his joining report on 02.02.2026 (Annexure A-12). Thereafter,
vide application dated 18.02.2026 (Annexure A-13) the applicant sought
voluntary retirement on three months notice, requesting relief by
15.05.2026, or alternatively, he sought resignation from service on the
same notice period. Application of the applicant was rejected vide order
dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure A-14). Voluntary retirement was declined on
the ground that he had not completed 20 years of qualifying service,
while resignation was not accepted on account of exigencies of work and
shortage of experienced faculty in the department.
6. ​ The applicant filed representation dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure
A-15) in support of his case. Vide letter dated 13.04.2026 (Annexure
A-16) he was informed that his representation was under process and
was asked not to leave the department until acceptance of his
resignation. He submitted a further representation dated 18.04.2026
(Annexure A-17). The applicant states that his claim for voluntary
retirement was subsequently rejected without assigning any reason with
reference to the applicable rules, and his request for resignation was also
rejected on the ground of shortage of faculty following the relieving of
Prof. Subodh to join NIMHANS, Bengaluru, and the retirement of Prof. D.
Basu. The decision was communicated vide order dated 09.05.2026
(Annexure A-18).
7. ​ The respondents have raised preliminary objections qua
suppression of material documents and conduct of the applicant. It is
submitted that the applicant had undertaken to resume duty within one
year of departure and had acknowledged the applicable
foreign-assignment guidelines. It is further submitted by the respondents
that the NOCs dated 01.11.2022 and 10.02.2023 were conditional upon
2026.10.22
14:40:18
SHIVAM
+05'30'
the competent authority deciding the relief of the applicant in accordance
with law. It is stated that despite undertaking dated 29.04.2025
(Annexure R-5) to resume duty within one year, the applicant
subsequently sought further six months leave, which was declined.

​ ​ ​ ​ 5 ​ (O.A.No.060/840/2026)

8. ​ It is further submitted by the respondents that the applicant is
covered under the National Pension System (NPS), and his request for
voluntary retirement is governed by Rule 12 of the CCS (Implementation
of National Pension System) Rules, 2021, and not the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 which have been relied upon by the applicant. The
respondents have further submitted that voluntary retirement is not an
absolute right, and that the same is subject to eligibility of qualifying
service.
9. ​ With respect to rejection of the resignation, it is submitted by the
respondents that resignation does not become effective merely upon
submission or expiry of the notice period, but requires acceptance and
relieving from service. It has been contended by the respondents that the
resignation of the applicant was declined vide order dated 09.05.2026
(Annexure A-18) due to the shortage of faculty arising from the
retirement of Prof. D. Basu and the relieving of Prof. Subodh B.N. to join
NIMHANS, Bengaluru. The respondents further submit that the applicant
continues to attend duty and draw salary as Professor, PGIMER.
10. ​ I have learned counsel for both sides and perused the material on
record. As stated hereinabove, vide order dated 09.10.2026, the relief
clause contained in para Nos. 8(iii), 8(iv) and 8(v) of this OA were
dropped. Arguments have been heard with respect to relief sought by the
applicant qua resignation. During the course of the arguments, learned
counsel for the respondents has fairly stated that no disciplinary inquiry is
pending or contemplated against the applicant.
11. ​ Vide order dated 09.10.2026, the respondents had also been
directed to produce the original record whereby the case of the applicant
for voluntary retirement / resignation has been dealt with. The said
record has been produced in Court on 14.10.2026. I have gone through
2026.10.22
14:40:18
SHIVAM
+05'30'
the original record.
12. ​ From perusal of the impugned orders itself, it is apparent that the
impugned Annexures A-14 and A-18, rejecting the applications of
voluntary retirement / resignation of the applicant, have been issued by

​ ​ ​ ​ 6 ​ (O.A.No.060/840/2026)

Respondent No. 4 i.e. Sr. Administrative Officer (F), PGIMER, stated to
have been passed with the approval of the competent authority. Learned
counsel for the applicant has contended that in the case of the applicant,
working as a Professor at PGIMER, the competent authority to accept the
resignation is President, PGIMER, i.e. Respondent No. 3, and not Director,
PGIMER, i.e. Respondent No. 2.
13. ​ Learned counsel for the respondents has on record the Rules and
Regulations of the PGI Act (Amended upto September, 2020), wherein
Schedule-1, s/substituted vide PGI notification No. E3/NF/84/6804 dated
15.6.1984 with the approval of Central Govt. vide MOH letter No.
V.17011/82-ME (PG), 23.3.1984, delineates the powers of the Director,
President, the Governing Body and the Institute. The Schedule, at S.No.
67, prescribes that with respect to powers to accept resignation of Group
‘A’ Employees, the Director shall have full powers in respect of all Group
‘A’ posts, except in case of Professors and Additional Professors, and that
the President shall have full powers in case of Director (subject to
ratification by the institutes), Professor and Additional Professors.
14. ​ Having gone through the original record of the case, it is apparent
that the case has been forwarded only upto the level of Director, i.e.
Respondent No. 2, and the same has not been placed before the
President, i.e. Respondent No. 3. As noted above, the President, PGIMER,
is the competent authority with the powers to accept the resignation in
the case of Professors. As such, the impugned rejection orders dated
10.03.2026 (Annexure A-14) and 09.05.2026 (Annexure A-18) have
apparently been passed without the approval of the competent authority
i.e. President, PGIMER, and the same are liable to be quashed.
15. ​ In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 10.03.2026
(Annexure A-14) and 09.05.2026 (Annexure A-18), to the extent that
2026.10.22
14:40:18
SHIVAM
+05'30'
case of the applicant for resignation has been rejected without the
approval of the competent authority, are quashed and set aside.
Respondent No. 4 i.e. Sr. Administrative Officer, PGIMER is directed to
place the case of the applicant for resignation before the competent
authority, i.e. President, PGIMER (Respondent No. 3) for fresh

​ ​ ​ ​ 7 ​ (O.A.No.060/840/2026)

consideration. The competent authority shall pass a reasoned and
speaking order thereon, dealing with the contentions raised by the
applicant, in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise shall be
completed within a period of three weeks from the receipt of a certified
copy of this Order.
16. ​ It is clarified that this Tribunal has not expressed its opinion on the
merits of the case of the applicant qua resignation, and the competent
authority shall deal with the same in accordance with law.
17. ​ The Original Application is disposed of in the above terms. Pending
Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. No
order as to costs.



/s/
(RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
MEMBER (J)

2026.10.22
14:40:18
SHIVAM
+05'30'