A division bench comprising Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja delivered the ruling while dismissing a petition filed by Neeraj Bishnoi. The High Court upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jaipur.
The court held that losing an election by itself cannot be treated as a compelling reason or a significant change in circumstances warranting withdrawal of resignation under the applicable rules.
In this case, the employee had voluntarily resigned from government service with the specific intention of contesting an election. He acted on the reason for his resignation and contested the Assembly election.
Bishnoi was serving as a Senior Auditor with North Western Railway. He resigned on October 10, 2023, to contest the Rajasthan Assembly election. The department accepted his resignation with effect from November 1, 2023.
He subsequently contested the election from the Ratangarh Assembly constituency in Churu district on a BSP ticket but lost. On January 1, 2024, he applied for withdrawal of his resignation and sought reinstatement in government service.
The department rejected his request on January 29, 2024. His subsequent request was also rejected on February 22, 2024.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that he had applied to withdraw his resignation within the 90-day period prescribed under the rules.
He also submitted that, at the time of resigning, he was unaware that his decision would affect his pension and retirement benefits. He came to know about the loss of pension and retirement benefits only after losing the election.
Therefore, he argued that the circumstances had changed and that this should be treated as a ground for permitting withdrawal of his resignation.
The department opposed the plea, maintaining that the employee had consciously left government service to contest the election. After losing the election, he could not go back on his decision and claim reinstatement in government service.
After hearing both sides, the High Court held that the consequences relating to pension and retirement benefits becoming apparent after the election defeat could not be treated as the compelling reason prescribed under the rules for withdrawing a resignation.
The High Court referred to the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, under which a resignation must have been submitted because of a compelling reason, followed by a significant change in the circumstances connected with that reason.
The court also referred to the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which require a government employee to maintain political neutrality at all times. The rules also prohibit government employees from joining political parties and participating in elections.
The High Court observed that if Bishnoi's resignation were withdrawn, he would be treated as having remained continuously in government service without any break. In that situation, his political activity of contesting the election after resignation would also be treated as conduct undertaken during his period of government service.
Such a situation, the court held, was not permissible. The High Court consequently dismissed the petition and upheld the CAT, Jaipur, decision.
About The Author
Comment List