Delayed allegations of workplace harassment and forced resignation after voluntary exit lack evidentiary merit for reinstatement.

The Appellant, a Management Trainee (Finance and Accounts) who joined Respondent No. 1 on 03.11.2022, resigned from his position on 19.05.2023 (backdated to 18.05.2023) while on probation

After nearly one year, on 04.04.2024, the Appellant alleged he was forced to resign due to workplace harassment and discrimination

He filed a complaint with the National Commission for Scheduled Caste (NCSC), which was dismissed on 08.11.2024 for lack of merit

The Appellant then filed a Writ Petition [W.P.(C) 13076/2025] seeking reinstatement and back wages, which was dismissed by a Single Judge on 27.08.2025

The Appellant preferred this intra-court appeal (LPA) challenging that dismissal.

Whether the Appellant’s resignation was voluntary or obtained under duress/coercion amounting to constructive dismissal.

Whether the Appellant was entitled to reinstatement through a Writ of Mandamus despite not challenging the NCSC order and failing to raise timely grievances.

The Court applied the principles governing the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which requires a clear legal right and a corresponding failure of public duty

It also relied on the doctrine of "acquiescence and delay," where a failure to protest at the first available opportunity—such as during the notice period—undermines allegations of coercion

Furthermore, the court adhered to the principle of res judicata or finality of administrative orders, noting that a party cannot seek identical relief in a Writ Petition if they have failed to challenge a specific adverse order from a constitutional body like the NCSC

The Court observed that the Appellant served a one-month notice period following his resignation but failed to raise any allegations of harassment or "forced resignation" during that time

The first formal complaint was lodged nearly a year after his exit, which the court deemed an "afterthought" lacking evidentiary support

The Court highlighted that the Appellant’s claims regarding compromised mental health were not substantiated by medical or documentary evidence

Crucially, the Court noted that the Appellant did not challenge the NCSC’s order dated 08.11.2024, which had already found his case meritless; thus, he could not reopen the same grievances through a Writ Petition

Since the Appellant resigned during his probation and no evidence of coercion existed, the Court found no procedural lapse or illegal termination by the Respondents

The bench affirmed the Single Judge's decision, noting that the Appellant was not entitled to reopen settled grievances without challenging the NCSC order or providing credible evidence of harassment

The Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs