Staff shortage is not a valid ground to withhold resignation or refuse release for outside employment.

The applicant, a Track Maintainer-IV in the Lumding Division of N.F. Railway, applied for the same post in the Asansol Division of Eastern Railway under Centralised Employment Notice (CEN) 01/2019.

He requested a No Objection Certificate (NOC) on March 2, 2023, and December 17, 2024, but the Railway authorities rejected the request via a cryptic order dated May 19, 2025.

Despite qualifying for the new post and receiving an offer of appointment on May 16, 2025, the respondents refused to accept his subsequent resignation submitted on May 27, 2025.

The respondents argued that the Lumding-Badarpur Hill Section faced a 42% staff shortage in safety categories, making the release of frontline staff detrimental to operational safety under Railway Board Master Circular No. 21/2019 and Rule 302 of the IREC.

1. Whether the respondents were legally justified in rejecting the applicant’s NOC and resignation based on operational exigencies and staff shortages.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefits of "Technical Resignation" despite the lack of 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, making forwarding the rule rather than the exception.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sanjay Jain v. National Aviation Co. of India Ltd (2019), which established that resignation is an employee's right unless disciplinary proceedings are pending or specific rules prohibit it.

The Gauhati High Court’s decision in WP(C) No. 4425/2025 (Jagdev Kumar case), holding that staff shortage is not a valid ground to withhold a resignation.

Administrative transparency principle from Secretary Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity, asserting that reasons are the "heartbeat" of every conclusion and essential to natural justice.

DoPT OM dated August 17, 2016, which distinguishes between technical and ordinary resignation.

The Tribunal found the respondents’ rejection order dated May 19, 2025, to be "vague and cryptic," failing the requirement of providing a reasoned administrative decision.

The court observed that the applicant did not fall under the restrictive criteria of Rule 1401 IREM (e.g., being engaged in time-bound projects or facing disciplinary action) that would justify withholding his application.

Applying the precedent from the Gauhati High Court, the Tribunal ruled that "operational exigencies" and "staff shortage" are insufficient grounds to forcibly retain an employee who wishes to resign.

The Tribunal noted that because the applicant could not prove he had obtained a prior NOC before appearing for the recruitment process, his departure could not be classified as a "Technical Resignation" under the DoPT OM dated August 17, 2016.

Consequently, while the applicant had a right to resign, he would forfeit the benefits of his past service.

It directed the respondents to accept the applicant's resignation dated May 27, 2025, forthwith.

It further directed the Railway Recruitment Cell, Eastern Railway (Respondent No. 4), to complete the selection process and appoint the applicant to the post of Track Maintainer-IV in the Asansol Division, provided he is otherwise eligible.

The holding clarified that the appointment would be on the basis of a fresh resignation without the benefit of past service.

No order as to costs was made.