A binding undertaking to repay disputed dues suffices; resignation cannot be withheld pending immediate deposit.

The petitioner, an Inspector serving in the BSF Air Wing, had completed more than 13 years of service with an unblemished record.

Owing to domestic responsibilities, she submitted her resignation on 18 March 2026 and enclosed a no-dues certificate.

The respondents returned the resignation, requiring recovery of ₹10,38,000 allegedly paid as flying allowance for the period 1 May 2018 to 30 April 2023 before the resignation could be processed.

The petitioner undertook to repay the flying allowance if so directed in the pending connected matter, Amit Kumar, 2IC & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 1808/2026.

Meanwhile, she was transferred from SAP, BSF, New Delhi to Airbase Raipur; although the transfer was initially kept in abeyance, it was implemented through a posting order dated 28 August 2026.

The petitioner approached the Court seeking processing of her resignation without insisting on prior deposit of the flying allowance.

Whether the respondents could refuse to process the petitioner’s resignation unless she first deposited the disputed flying allowance of ₹10,38,000.

Whether the petitioner’s undertaking to repay the flying allowance if the connected writ petition was decided against her sufficiently safeguarded the respondents’ interests.

Whether the respondents should be directed to process the petitioner’s resignation notwithstanding the pendency of the dispute concerning recovery of the flying allowance.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the principle that an undertaking given to a court must be honoured and that breach of such undertaking may invite contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The Court also relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., (2015) 1 SCC 347, for the principle that the law declared in a service matter may extend to similarly situated employees.

The Court further considered the pending adjudication in Amit Kumar, 2IC & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 1808/2026, concerning entitlement to and recovery of the flying allowance.

It held that, absent identification of any statutory or service-rule provision requiring prior deposit, the respondents could not insist on such deposit as a condition for processing the resignation.

The Court treated the petitioner’s written undertaking as an undertaking to the Court, not merely an administrative assurance.

Consequently, failure to repay the amount if required by the outcome in Amit Kumar could expose her to contempt proceedings and recovery from her estate.

Since the respondents could not point to any legal or service-rule provision authorising them to demand prior deposit of the disputed amount, and since the issue was sub judice in the connected writ petition, the Court found that the respondents’ interests were adequately secured by the undertaking.

The Court therefore held that insisting on immediate deposit was not justified or reasonable.

It directed that, if W.P.(C) 1808/2026 is dismissed, the petitioner must deposit the entire flying allowance within two weeks of that dismissal; failure would entitle the respondents to initiate contempt proceedings and pursue other lawful recovery measures, including recovery from her estate.

The respondents were directed to process the petitioner’s resignation forthwith and communicate their decision within one week.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed.