Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010070852026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2019/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN -781011 2: THE GENERAL MANAGER (P) N.F. RAILAWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11. 3: THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (P) N.F. RAILAWAY TINSUKIA DIVISION TINSUKIA ASSAM. PIN- 786125 4: THE ASSITANT PERSONEL OFFICE (II) N.F. RAILWAY TINSUKIA DIVISION TINSUKIA DIVISION PIN- 786125 5: THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER/C N.F. RAILWAY TINSUKIA DIVISION TINSUKIA VERSUS SRI DEPANJAL DAS S/O SRI SUBHASH CHANDRA DAS, RESIDENT OF DIBRUGARH RAILWAY COLONY, CHOWKIDINGEE, DIBRUGARH, PIN-786001. Page No.# 2/6 For the petitioners : Mrs. A. Gayan, C.G.C. For the respondent : Mr. H.K. Das, Advocate Ms. D. Mahanta, Advocate – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 23-04-2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) We have heard Mrs. A. Gayan, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners/Union of India and four others and Mr. H.K. Das, learned Advocate for the sole respondent. 2. The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Tribunal’), Guwahati Bench in O.A. No.040/00043/2026 whereby the prayer made on behalf of the respondent for acceptance of his technical resignation was allowed and the petitioners/Railway authorities were directed to grant the technical resignation in favour of the respondent as prayed by him in his application dated 29.01.2026 within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order of the Tribunal with the condition that the respondent would not have any lien over the current post he had been occupying after joining as Grade-VII under Oil India Authorities, Duliajan. Page No.# 3/6 3. The facts lie in a very short compass. The respondent herein while serving on a technical post at Dibrugarh Mechanical Workshop with the Railways had applied for a Grade-VII executive post in Oil India Limited at Duliajan sometimes in the year 2025. Fortunately for him, the respondent cleared the selection process but faced repeated hurdles in joining such high job because of the Railways not granting the No Objection Certificate (NOC) or permission to join the new job. The reasons of the Railways in not coming forth with the acceptance of the technical resignation or granting permission to the respondent to join his new job were the acute staff shortage and the respondent being the sole civil supervisor, handling important time-bound infrastructure projects at the workshop and he having offered an indemnity bond at the time of joining as an apprentice which required him to serve the Railways for at least five years. This delay in grant of permission to the respondent led to his filing a writ petition [WP(C) 309/2026] before this Court wherein a direction was issued to the Railways to decide his NOC application expeditiously. It was only thereafter that a detailed/speaking order was passed on 04.02.2026 rejecting the NOC on the strength of the Railway Board Master Circular No.30 dated 15.07.1991. The respondent thereafter approached the Tribunal and sought a direction against the Railways to accept his technical resignation. The Tribunal allowed the application and, as noted above, directed the Railways to accept the technical resignation within ten days but with the caveat that the respondent would have no lien on his present post Page No.# 4/6 after joining Oil India Limited. 4. One of the contentions raised by Mrs. A. Gayan, learned Central Government Counsel on behalf of the petitioners is that the Tribunal passed the order impugned without giving the Railways an opportunity to file written statement or argue its case. Because of this, it has been contended, the Railway Board Guidelines were completely ignored while passing the order. The petitioners had been facing acute shortage of staff, especially in time-bound projects. 5. The Master Circular provides that any Railway employee, whether permanent or temporary would be given four opportunities to apply for posts in Government Departments/Public Sector Undertakings/Autonomous Bodies wholly or substantially financed and controlled by Central or State Government. However, the Head of the Departments/General Managers would be at liberty to withhold such applications if it is found that in public interest it would not be feasible to relieve the Railway servant concerned for a post outside the Railways. 6. The afore-noted circular further clarifies that while it may not be feasible to define “public interest”, but the authorities would be well advised to interpret the term strictly and subject to the condition that forwarding of application should be the rule rather than the exception, and the decision should be taken at appropriate level. The interests of the employer and employee both, according to the circular, are required to be taken care of and balanced. This discretion has to be applied with utmost objectivity and not mechanically. 7. Some of the circumstances in which such consent could be Page No.# 5/6 withheld are when the employee concerned is engaged on any important time-bound project and the work would be seriously disrupted if he is relieved, or the Railway servant applies for a post which is equivalent in status and work, or the Railway servant is facing departmental proceeding/court prosecution, or is under suspension. 8. While perusing the impugned order, we are of the view that the Tribunal ought to have given ample opportunities to the Railways to represent its case. Nonetheless, the Central Government Sanding Counsel was heard on behalf of the Railways who had canvassed that there was an acute shortage of staff in the division where the respondent had been working and, therefore, his being relieved would not be in public interest. 9. Looking at the facts of the case of the respondent, even if it is assumed that there was acute shortage of staff, in view of the statement made on behalf of the Railways that there was 60% vacancy in the Junior Engineer cadre, it would not have been fair for the Railways in not relieving the employee/respondent, especially when he was moving to a higher post in the Government of India undertaking, namely, Oil India Limited. The post on which the respondent was selected was a higher post with a different work mandate and the respondent had not been facing any departmental proceeding, court prosecution, or was ever under suspension. He definitely but was under the terms of the indemnity bond, which he had furnished, of serving the Railways for the next five years and, in case of his exit, he would return the cost of training and other refundable expenses. Page No.# 6/6 10. The time period of the bond still subsists. 11. Considering the case of the respondent and the employer (petitioners), we find that the Tribunal did not actually go wrong in directing for the immediate grant of permission to the respondent to join his new higher post in Oil India Limited. 12. However, while upholding and ratifying the order passed by the Tribunal, which has been impugned in the present petition, we do observe that the respondent shall be bound by the indemnity bond, which he had furnished, and any demand for refund of the cost of training or enforcement of the bond money would be subject to the Indian Railway Establishment Manual and the other Rules in that regard, which could be exacted by the Railways if deemed necessary. 13. With the afore-noted observations, this writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant