Staff shortage is not a valid ground to refuse resignation of an employee seeking higher appointment.

The applicant was appointed as a Trackman IV (Level 1) in the N.F. Railway on May 1, 2023

Pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2024, he applied for the higher post of Technician Grade III (Level 2) under RRB Malda and qualified in the examination

On March 20, 2025, he applied for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for document verification, which was not granted

on May 1, 2025, the applicant submitted his resignation to join the new post.

The respondents rejected the resignation on July 18, 2025, citing "acute shortage of staff" and "operational exigencies"

The applicant challenged this rejection, alleging discrimination as similarly situated employees in other divisions were granted NOCs

1. Whether an employee has an absolute right to resign for career progression and whether the employer can withhold such resignation on the grounds of staff shortage.

2. Whether the applicant’s resignation qualifies as a "Technical Resignation" for the purpose of carrying forward past service benefits.

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

Supreme Court precedent in Sanjay Jain v. National Aviation Co. of India Ltd. (2019) 14 SCC 492, which established that resigning is a right of an employee and they cannot be forced to serve unless there are pending disciplinary proceedings or specific contractual stipulations

DoPT OM dated August 17, 2016, which defines "Technical Resignation" as one where the application was forwarded through the proper channel

The Tribunal observed that the respondents’ grounds for rejecting the resignation—staff shortage and exigencies—were legally unsustainable, following the Gauhati High Court's ruling in WP(C) No. 4425/2025

The court found that the applicant did not fall under the restrictive categories of Rule 1401 IREM, as he was not engaged in a time-bound project, facing disciplinary action, or applying for an equivalent post

However, since the applicant applied for the NOC only after appearing for the examination (rather than before applying), it failed to meet the criteria for a "Technical Resignation" under the DoPT OM

Consequently, while the right to resign was upheld based on Sanjay Jain, the applicant was deemed ineligible for the continuity of past service benefits

It directed the respondents to accept the applicant's resignation effective May 1, 2025, and directed RRB Malda to complete the selection process and appoint him as Technician Grade III if otherwise eligible. The court held that the resignation would not be treated as "Technical," and thus the applicant would not receive consequential benefits of past service. The O.A. was allowed with no order as to costs