Sandeep Grover vs Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (P.G.I.M.E.R.), Chandigarh & Ors.

Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):

The present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeks quashing of impugned order dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure A-14) and impugned order dated 09.05.2026 (Annexure A-18) passed by Respondent No.4 and also against the action of the respondents in not relieving the applicant in pursuance to his application for voluntary retirement/ resignation despite lapse of Notice Period of 90 days. The applicant has prayed for reliefs as under:

During the course of arguments on 09.10.2026, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant does not wish to press the relief clause contained in para Nos. 8(iii), 8(iv) and 8(v) of this OA. The said relief clauses, which pertain to applicant’s claim towards voluntary retirement, are dropped accordingly.

Facts of the case in brief are that the applicant was initially selected as Junior Resident in PGIMER w.e.f. 01.01.2000, and over the years has been appointed as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and finally as Professor w.e.f. 12.05.2017, on which post the applicant is working till date. Service particulars have been appended as Annexures A-1 to A-5.

It is submitted that the applicant sought a No Objection Certificate to undertake an assignment as Specialist Consultant Psychiatrist at Northern Health, Melbourne, Australia, to obtain fellowship of the Royal College of Psychiatry, and applied for two years Ex-India leave. The respondents subsequently issued an NOC dated 10.02.2023 (Annexure A-7) and sanctioned one year of Ex-India Extraordinary Leave vide order dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure A-7A). Representation dated 24.08.2024 (Annexure A-8) moved by the applicant seeking two years leave or alternatively at least 18 months was not accepted. He was ultimately permitted to undertake the foreign assignment for one year vide order dated 13.11.2024 (Annexure A-9), and vide order dated 27.01.2025 the applicant was permitted to join w.e.f. 03.02.2025 and Earned Leave from 28.01.2025 to 01.02.2025 was sanctioned (Annexure A-10).

The applicant sought further six months Ex-India leave from 03.02.2026 to 02.08.2026 vide application dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure A-11). Extension was not granted to the applicant, and he returned and submitted his joining report on 02.02.2026 (Annexure A-12). Thereafter, vide application dated 18.02.2026 (Annexure A-13) the applicant sought voluntary retirement on three months notice, requesting relief by 15.05.2026, or alternatively, he sought resignation from service on the same notice period. Application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure A-14). Voluntary retirement was declined on the ground that he had not completed 20 years of qualifying service, while resignation was not accepted on account of exigencies of work and shortage of experienced faculty in the department.

The applicant filed representation dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure A-15) in support of his case. Vide letter dated 13.04.2026 (Annexure A-16) he was informed that his representation was under process and was asked not to leave the department until acceptance of his resignation. He submitted a further representation dated 18.04.2026 (Annexure A-17). The applicant states that his claim for voluntary retirement was subsequently rejected without assigning any reason with reference to the applicable rules, and his request for resignation was also rejected on the ground of shortage of faculty following the relieving of Prof. Subodh to join NIMHANS, Bengaluru, and the retirement of Prof. D. Basu. The decision was communicated vide order dated 09.05.2026 (Annexure A-18).

The respondents have raised preliminary objections qua suppression of material documents and conduct of the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant had undertaken to resume duty within one year of departure and had acknowledged the applicable foreign-assignment guidelines. It is further submitted by the respondents that the NOCs dated 01.11.2022 and 10.02.2023 were conditional upon the competent authority deciding the relief of the applicant in accordance with law. It is stated that despite undertaking dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure R-5) to resume duty within one year, the applicant subsequently sought further six months leave, which was declined.

It is further submitted by the respondents that the applicant is covered under the National Pension System (NPS), and his request for voluntary retirement is governed by Rule 12 of the CCS (Implementation of National Pension System) Rules, 2021, and not the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which have been relied upon by the applicant. The respondents have further submitted that voluntary retirement is not an absolute right, and that the same is subject to eligibility of qualifying service.

With respect to rejection of the resignation, it is submitted by the respondents that resignation does not become effective merely upon submission or expiry of the notice period, but requires acceptance and relieving from service. It has been contended by the respondents that the resignation of the applicant was declined vide order dated 09.05.2026 (Annexure A-18) due to the shortage of faculty arising from the retirement of Prof. D. Basu and the relieving of Prof. Subodh B.N. to join NIMHANS, Bengaluru. The respondents further submit that the applicant continues to attend duty and draw salary as Professor, PGIMER.

I have learned counsel for both sides and perused the material on record. As stated hereinabove, vide order dated 09.10.2026, the relief clause contained in para Nos. 8(iii), 8(iv) and 8(v) of this OA were dropped. Arguments have been heard with respect to relief sought by the applicant qua resignation. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents has fairly stated that no disciplinary inquiry is pending or contemplated against the applicant.

Vide order dated 09.10.2026, the respondents had also been directed to produce the original record whereby the case of the applicant for voluntary retirement / resignation has been dealt with. The said record has been produced in Court on 14.10.2026. I have gone through the original record.

From perusal of the impugned orders itself, it is apparent that the impugned Annexures A-14 and A-18, rejecting the applications of voluntary retirement / resignation of the applicant, have been issued by Respondent No. 4 i.e. Sr. Administrative Officer (F), PGIMER, stated to have been passed with the approval of the competent authority. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that in the case of the applicant, working as a Professor at PGIMER, the competent authority to accept the resignation is President, PGIMER, i.e. Respondent No. 3, and not Director, PGIMER, i.e. Respondent No. 2.

Learned counsel for the respondents has on record the Rules and Regulations of the PGI Act (Amended upto September, 2020), wherein Schedule-1, s/substituted vide PGI notification No. E3/NF/84/6804 dated 15.6.1984 with the approval of Central Govt. vide MOH letter No. V.17011/82-ME (PG), 23.3.1984, delineates the powers of the Director, President, the Governing Body and the Institute. The Schedule, at S.No. 67, prescribes that with respect to powers to accept resignation of Group ‘A’ Employees, the Director shall have full powers in respect of all Group ‘A’ posts, except in case of Professors and Additional Professors, and that the President shall have full powers in case of Director (subject to ratification by the institutes), Professor and Additional Professors.

Having gone through the original record of the case, it is apparent that the case has been forwarded only upto the level of Director, i.e. Respondent No. 2, and the same has not been placed before the President, i.e. Respondent No. 3. As noted above, the President, PGIMER, is the competent authority with the powers to accept the resignation in the case of Professors. As such, the impugned rejection orders dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure A-14) and 09.05.2026 (Annexure A-18) have apparently been passed without the approval of the competent authority i.e. President, PGIMER, and the same are liable to be quashed.

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure A-14) and 09.05.2026 (Annexure A-18), to the extent that case of the applicant for resignation has been rejected without the approval of the competent authority, are quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 4 i.e. Sr. Administrative Officer, PGIMER is directed to place the case of the applicant for resignation before the competent authority, i.e. President, PGIMER (Respondent No. 3) for fresh consideration. The competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order thereon, dealing with the contentions raised by the applicant, in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

It is clarified that this Tribunal has not expressed its opinion on the merits of the case of the applicant qua resignation, and the competent authority shall deal with the same in accordance with law.

The Original Application is disposed of in the above terms. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.