Jaipur, Sep 12 (IANS): The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a government employee who resigns from service to contest an election cannot seek reinstatement merely because he loses the contest.
A division bench of Justice Indrajit Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja delivered the ruling while dismissing a petition filed by Neeraj Bishnoi, a former senior auditor with North Western Railway.
The court held that an election defeat does not by itself amount to a “compelling reason” or a “significant change in circumstances” warranting withdrawal of a resignation under the applicable service rules.
Bishnoi resigned from his post on October 10, 2023, to contest the Rajasthan Assembly election. The Railway 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, Bishnoi applied for withdrawal of his resignation and sought reinstatement in government service.
The department rejected his request on January 29, 2024. His subsequent representation was also rejected on February 22, 2024.
He then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jaipur, and later challenged the decision before the High Court. Before the High Court, Bishnoi’s counsel argued that the application to withdraw the resignation had been submitted within the 90-day period prescribed under the rules. It was also argued that Bishnoi was unaware at the time of resigning that the decision would affect his pension and other retirement benefits.
According to the plea, he became aware of the consequences only after losing the election. The petitioner argued that this amounted to a change in circumstances and should have allowed him to withdraw his resignation. The department opposed the plea, maintaining that Bishnoi had voluntarily resigned specifically to contest the election. Having acted on that decision, he could not withdraw his resignation simply because he was unsuccessful at the polls.
After hearing both sides, the High Court upheld the CAT’s decision and dismissed the petition. The court observed that the subsequent realisation that resignation would affect pension and retirement benefits could not be treated as a “compelling reason” under the rules governing withdrawal of resignation.
The bench noted that Bishnoi had voluntarily resigned for the stated purpose of contesting the election and had subsequently acted on that decision by entering the electoral contest. The High Court referred to the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, under which withdrawal of resignation is subject to specified conditions, including the existence of a compelling reason for the resignation and a significant change in circumstances connected with that reason.
The court also considered the provisions governing political activity by government employees. Under the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, government employees are required to maintain political neutrality and are restricted from participating in political activities and elections in the manner prescribed by the rules. The court noted that allowing the resignation to be withdrawn in the circumstances of the case would have the effect of treating the petitioner as having remained in continuous government service during the period after his resignation, including the period when he contested the election.
It consequently found no grounds to interfere with the CAT’s order and dismissed the petition.
