✦ High Court of India · 16 Oct 2025

Sher Singh Parmar v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Govt. Of India Deptt. Of Pensions And Pensioners Welfare And

Case Details High Court of India · 16 Oct 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

16 Oct 2025

Bench

SANGEETA CHANDRA AMITABH KUMAR RAI

Length

1,462 words

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Surya Bhan Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Shri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following main prayers: "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI, quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 05.11.2024 passed in O.A. No. 80/2022, and the judgment and order dated 23.01.2025 passed in Review Application No. 01/2025 by the learned CAT, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, annexed herewith as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the appropriate post in the Central Excise and Customs Department from the date of acceptance of the resignation/retirement letter, treating the petitioner to be in service, and to pay full arrears in terms of pay and associated benefits along with appropriate interest. (c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS, directing the respondents to grant the petitioner promotion as on date, namely to the post of Commissioner, based on the ACP (Assured Career Progression) Scheme, from the date of acceptance of the resignation until the date of reinstatement, along with the salary and associated benefits of the Commissioner rank and other consequential benefits." 2 WRIA No. 12259 of 2025 It is the case of the petitioner that he joined as an Inspector in the Department of Customs and Excise on 28.09.1989. He played an instrumental role in the seizure of silver in January 1991 and was awarded by the department. The then Commissioner of Excise, Pune, recommended him for an award in recognition of his extraordinary exemplary bravery, however, he did not receive any such award. It is stated that in the year 1994, while being posted in the Konkan region, he was diagnosed with an advanced stage of abdominal T.B. He went on extraordinary leave for one year. As a result of continuous treatment for abdominal T.B., he incurred extra expenses which were not reimbursed by the department. The petitioner, being subjected to extreme mental pressure, firstly due to not getting the award recommended by the Commissioner and secondly due to non- reimbursement of his medical expenses and denial of the benefit of Transfer Allowance and joining period when he was transferred from Customs, Dapoli, to Pune, tendered his resignation to the appropriate authority through proper channel on 29.11.1999. Such resignation was rejected by the competent authority on the ground that it was conditional. The petitioner again tendered his resignation on 22.12.1999, which was also rejected on 31.05.2000 on the same ground. He was also informed that he could not be granted voluntary retirement as he had not completed 20 years of service in the department. It has been submitted that on 19.03.2001, the petitioner again submitted his resignation, which was also rejected on similar grounds. Meanwhile, the petitioner underwent treatment for mental illness as he was suffering from "Anxiety Neurosis." The petitioner finally tendered his resignation through proper channel on 18.04.2001, making reference to his earlier resignation letters dated 01.01.2001 and 19.03.2001, citing personal problems. His resignation was finally accepted by the authority on 02.07.2001, with effect from 01.07.2001. The competent authority accepted the conditional letter of resignation as per the provisions of Rule 26(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules,

1972. It has also been submitted that such a conditional resignation should not have been accepted in the first place by the competent authority. The petitioner submitted a letter dated 12.08.2001 to the department withdrawing his resignation on the ground that he had recovered from his mental illness. He again submitted a letter on 12.03.2003 for withdrawal of his resignation. His request was turned down on 05.09.2003 on the ground that the time 3 WRIA No. 12259 of 2025 lapse between the acceptance of resignation by the appointing authority and the date of application for withdrawal of resignation by the petitioner was more than 90 days, as per Rule 26(4)(iii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The department ignored his earlier letter for withdrawal of resignation dated

12.08.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner repeatedly requested the authorities to treat the aforementioned intervening period as per Rule 50(2)(iii) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, as he had obtained a post-graduate degree in Economic Geography (M.A.) in the meantime. However, the respondents were adamant and did not accept his prayer, hence, he filed Original Application No. 80 of 2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in February 2022. Initially, the said O.A. was admitted, and notices were issued to the respondents to file their reply. Later on, the said O.A. was dismissed on 05.11.2024. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Review Application No. 01 of 2025, which was also dismissed on 23.01.2025. Hence, the instant petition has been filed before this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out from the pleadings on record that under Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the request for withdrawal of resignation should be made within 90 days from the date of its acceptance. In the case of the petitioner, he had mentioned in paragraph no. 30 of O.A. No. 80 of 2022 that he had moved his application for withdrawal of resignation on 12.03.2003. The petitioner had not mentioned that he had moved an application for withdrawal of resignation on 12.08.2001, as has been alleged in the instant writ petition. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has rightly observed that, as per the rules, the condition for making an application for withdrawal of resignation is that the period between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed to resume duty as a result of permission to withdraw the resignation shall not exceed 90 days. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the respondents that the Tribunal also considered the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the resignation tendered before the authorities was conditional and should not have been accepted in the first place. He has pointed out the contents of the resignation letter dated 18.04.2001, 4 WRIA No. 12259 of 2025 which was accepted by the authorities on 02.07.2001 with effect from

01.07.2001. The contents have been quoted on internal page no. 4 of the judgment of the Tribunal, wherein mention has been made of future amendments in the rules and the petitioner's right to claim pension and other service benefits if the rules were amended in the future. The Tribunal has observed, and rightly so, that the conditions put forth by the petitioner had no basis under the rules prevalent at that time, and assuming that such conditions would become lawfully feasible at a future date was at his own risk. A resignation conditional upon a non-existent law, rule, or guideline is not a conditional resignation. It has also been pointed out that after the rejection of his application for withdrawal of resignation, the petitioner approached the Tribunal after 21 years from the date of acceptance of his resignation and after about 16 years from the date of rejection of his request for withdrawal. The Tribunal found that the petitioner had mentioned lack of legal knowledge and resources as the reason for approaching the Tribunal with delay. In the rejoinder affidavit and written submissions filed by the petitioner, he had referred to several representations made respondents, which were eventually rejected by an order dated 23.10.2019. According to the petitioner, since action was taken only on 23.10.2019, he filed the Original Application in 2022 due to the intervening period of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal observed that the respondents had never given any assurance to the petitioner that his application for withdrawal of resignation would receive favourable consideration, and merely submitting repeated representations cannot extend the limitation period. We find no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order, as we find that it is based on the rules applicable to the case of the petitioner, namely the CCS (Pension) Rules, and we do not find any perversity in the appreciation of such rules by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. October 16, 2025 Mahesh (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments