Public servant's resignation to contest elections not a 'compelling reason' for withdrawal post-loss.

The applicant, Neeraj Bishnoi, a Senior Auditor, resigned on October 10, 2023, to contest the Legislative Assembly election in November 2023 on a Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) ticket.

His resignation was accepted on November 1, 2023.

After losing the election, he applied for reinstatement or, alternatively, for pension benefits.

The respondents rejected his reinstatement claim via order dated January 29, 2024 (Annexure A/1), citing Rule 26(5) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, and Rules 3(1)(vii) and 5 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

His representation was again rejected on February 22, 2024 (Annexure A/2), on the grounds that his resignation was not due to "compelling reasons" and there was no "material change" in circumstances, and his political activity during the intervening period was "improper" as per the rules.

Whether a public servant who tenders resignation to participate in an election, and whose resignation is accepted, is entitled to withdraw that resignation after being unsuccessful in the election.

Whether contesting an election constitutes a "compelling reason" or a "material change in circumstances" allowing for the withdrawal of resignation under Rule 26(5)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.

Whether participating in political activity after the acceptance of resignation but before a request for withdrawal constitutes "improper conduct" under Rule 26(5)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, read with Rule 3(1)(vii) and Rule 5 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

The court primarily applied Rule 26(5) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, which states that an appointing authority "may permit" withdrawal of resignation in public interest if the resignation was for "compelling reasons" not reflecting on integrity/efficiency/conduct, and the withdrawal request resulted from a "material change" in circumstances, provided the public servant's conduct during the intervening period was "in no way improper".

Additionally, Rule 3(1)(vii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, mandates government servants to "maintain political neutrality" at all times.

Rule 5(1) and 5(4) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, prohibit government servants from being associated with political parties or taking part in elections.

The court also referenced the Supreme Court judgment in *State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann* (1997) 3 SCC 321 and the Delhi High Court judgment in *Directorate of Education v. Manisha Sharma* (W.P. (C) No. 8494/2015), which interpreted similar provisions and held that contesting an election is not a "compelling reason" for resignation and that a subsequent loss does not constitute a "material change".

The court analyzed the applicant's request within the framework of Rule 26(5) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.

It found that contesting an election was a "deliberated choice" by the applicant, not a "compelling reason" for resignation.

The court further held that his subsequent loss in the election did not constitute a "material change" in the circumstances that originally compelled his resignation, as he had already acted on his choice to participate in the election.

Regarding conduct, the court reasoned that the applicant's participation in political activity while his resignation was effective, but during a period for which he sought continuity of government service, amounted to "improper conduct" under Rule 26(5)(ii).

It emphasized that if reinstatement implies continuity of service, the conduct during the intervening period must conform to the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, particularly regarding political neutrality (Rule 3(1)(vii)) and prohibition of political activity (Rule 5).

The court distinguished the Supreme Court's *Kamlesh Rani Bhatla* judgment, noting its unique factual context where the denial was solely based on pending charges.

It relied on *Manisha Sharma* and *Kartar Singh*, which directly supported the respondents' stance that contesting elections is not a compelling reason for resignation and that losing an election does not trigger a material change in circumstances.

The court concluded that the applicant's resignation was a "deliberated choice" to contest elections, not driven by "compelling reasons," and his subsequent loss did not constitute a "material change" in circumstances as required by Rule 26(5)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.

Furthermore, his involvement in political activity during the intervening period was deemed "improper conduct" under Rule 26(5)(ii) read with the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as a government servant is expected to maintain political neutrality at all times.