Administrative exigency or staff shortage cannot be used as a ground to refuse an employee's resignation.

The applicant, serving as a Trackman-IV (Level-1) in the NF Railway since 2019, applied for the post of Technician Grade-III (Level-2) under Central Employment Notice (CEN) No. 02/2024.

Despite being selected by RRB Kolkata, his requests for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) on 09.04.2024 and 26.03.2025 were rejected by the respondents via cryptic orders.

Faced with a 30-day joining deadline from the RRB, the applicant submitted his resignation on 01.08.2025, which the respondents withheld citing "acute manpower shortage" and "operational exigencies".

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking to quash the rejection of the NOC and to compel the acceptance of his resignation.

1. Whether the respondents can legally withhold the resignation of an employee based on staff shortage and operational exigencies.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefits of "technical resignation" despite not obtaining a prior NOC.

Rule 1401 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) Vol. I, which mandates that the term "public interest" for withholding applications must be interpreted strictly and that forwarding applications should be the rule rather than the exception.

The Supreme Court precedent in Sanjay Jain v. National Aviation Co. of India Ltd. (2019), establishing that resigning is a right of the employee and they cannot be forced to serve unless a disciplinary proceeding is pending.

DOPT OM dated 17.08.2016, which stipulates that resignation is only "technical" (preserving past service benefits) if the application was forwarded through the proper channel.

The Tribunal found that the respondents’ rejection orders were "cryptic" and lacked valid reasoning, violating principles of natural justice as established in Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity.

Regarding Rule 1401 of IREM, the court noted that the applicant did not meet any of the three prohibitive criteria (time-bound projects, pending disciplinary action, or applying for an equivalent post), as he was moving to a higher level.

The Tribunal followed the Gauhati High Court’s stance that "shortage of staff" is not a valid legal ground to deny a resignation.

However, because the applicant failed to prove he obtained an NOC before appearing for the examination, the Tribunal determined that while the resignation must be accepted under the Sanjay Jain doctrine, it cannot be classified as "Technical Resignation" under the DOPT OM, meaning the applicant forfeits past service benefits.

The respondents were directed to accept the applicant’s resignation forthwith and RRB Kolkata (Respondent No. 4) was directed to complete the selection and appoint the applicant to the post of Technician Grade III if otherwise eligible, while clarifying that the appointment would be on the basis of a simple resignation "without the benefit of past service" due to the procedural lapse in obtaining the prior NOC.