Shortage of staff is not a valid ground to withhold an employee’s resignation from service.

The applicant was appointed as Trackman-IV in the N.F. Railway on October 16, 2019

While in service, he applied for the higher-level post of Technician Grade-III under Central Employment Notice (CEN) No. 02/2024 and appeared for the written examination on December 23, 2024

He subsequently applied for a ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) on January 8, 2025, and sent a reminder on April 4, 2025, to facilitate document verification after being shortlisted

The respondents rejected the NOC request via an order dated May 19, 2025, without providing specific reasons

Consequently, the applicant submitted his resignation on June 19, 2025, which the respondents withheld citing acute staff shortage and operational exigencies in the Lumding Division

The applicant then approached the Tribunal seeking to quash the rejection of the NOC and a direction to accept his resignation

1. Whether the respondents’ order dated May 19, 2025, rejecting the applicant’s NOC, was legally sustainable given its lack of detailed reasoning

2. Whether administrative grounds such as "shortage of staff" or "operational exigencies" constitute valid legal justifications for withholding an employee's resignation

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefits of "Technical Resignation" despite applying for the NOC after appearing for the competitive examination

Rule 1401 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) Vol. I, which mandates that forwarding applications for outside posts should be the rule rather than the exception, limited only by specific public interest concerns like time-bound projects or pending disciplinary proceedings

The principles of natural justice as articulated in Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity, which requires administrative orders to be supported by recorded reasons

The precedent from Sanjay Jain v. National Aviation Co. of India Ltd., establishing that an employee has a fundamental right to resign unless specific contractual stipulations or pending disciplinary actions exist

The Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) OM dated August 17, 2016, which defines the criteria for "Technical Resignation"

The Tribunal found that the respondents’ rejection of the NOC was "cryptic" and violated the principles of natural justice because it failed to provide the "heartbeat" of reasoning required for administrative decisions

Upon reviewing Rule 1401 of the IREM, the Tribunal determined that the applicant did not fall under any of the restrictive categories—such as being engaged in time-bound projects or facing disciplinary action—that would justify withholding an application

Regarding the resignation, the Tribunal rejected the respondents' plea of "staff shortage," noting that the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 4425/2025 had already ruled such grounds insufficient to compel an employee to serve against their will

The Tribunal observed that because the applicant sought the NOC after appearing for the examination, he failed to meet the procedural requirements of the DoP&T OM for "Technical Resignation"

Consequently, while his right to resign was absolute, he could not claim the benefit of counting past service toward his new appointment

It directed the respondents to accept the applicant's resignation submitted on June 19, 2025, forthwith

The Tribunal held that while the applicant is entitled to resign to join the post of Technician Grade-III, such resignation shall not be treated as a "Technical Resignation," and he will not be entitled to the benefits of his past service (w.e.f. October 16, 2019) due to the delayed NOC application

Respondent No. 6 was further directed to accept the formal resignation issued by the Railways to complete the selection process