Dismissed¶13

Kobir Shaikh v. Union of India & Ors.

Service law – resignation once accepted

Calcutta HC11 Mar 2026FMA/340/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kobir Shaikh v. Union of India & Ors., F.M.A. 340 of 2021 with CAN 1 of 2020, decided 11.03.2026 (Coram: Madhuresh Prasad, J. and Prasenjit Biswas, J.). Resignation of a Constable (General Duty), submitted with immediate effect on 16.09.2017 and accepted by release order dated 12.10.2017 with a voluntary-resignation undertaking; later prayer dated 02.04.2018 to rejoin rejected by Commandant, 50th Bn SSB, Balrampur; Single Judge's dismissal of W.P. 21101(W) of 2018 upheld; appeal and connected application dismissed. No statute or precedent cited in the judgment.

What did the court decide?

On the facts noted, the Court found no infirmity in the decision of the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing the petitioner's writ petition. ¶12

Kobir Shaikh Vs Union of India & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

S/L 13 11.03.2026 Court No.04 B.K.N

¶2

F.M.A. 340 of 2021 With CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No. 831 of 2020)

¶3

Kobir Shaikh Vs.

¶4

Union of India & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Partha Sarathi Das, Mr. Md. Hafez Ali, Mrs. Sudipa Das, Mr. Agnijyoti Chanda

¶6

… for the Appellant.

¶7

Heard the learned advocate for the writ petitioner.

¶8

The facts not in dispute are petitioner’s joining as a Constable (General Duty) in the force on 31.08.2017. His submission of resignation dated 16.09.2017 and acceptance of the same by issuance of a release order on 12.10.2017 is also not in dispute. The petitioner thereafter had gone back home. He returned to the authorities with a request dated 02.04.2018, after six months expressing his willingness to rejoin; and requesting the authorities to allow him to rejoin. The application for rejoining was rejected by a communication issued by the Commandant 50^th Bn SSB, Balrampur.

¶9

The rejection order was put to challenge by the petitioner in a writ proceeding. W.P. 21101(W) of 2018 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge taking into consideration a settled principle of law that a resignation once accepted, there is no scope for rejoining by the

¶10

¶11

person whose resignation was accepted. It is not the writ petitioner’s case that the resignation was from a future date and that he wanted to resile from the resignation prior to the date on which the resignation was to take effect. In the present case the request for resignation was with immediate effect and the request was further supported by an undertaking given by the writ petitioner on 12.10.2017 to the effect that the resignation had been submitted without any pressure or compulsion. Only thereafter that the resignation was accepted on 12.10.2017.

¶12

In view of the above noted facts and circumstances we find no infirmity in the decision of the Hon’ble Single Judge dismissing the petitioner’s writ petition.

¶13

The appeal is dismissed. The connected application is also dismissed.

¶14

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)

¶15

(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)

Kobir Shaikh v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kobir Shaikh v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhananjoy Das and Anr. Vs Surendra Gupta IAS Principal Secretary of Deptt of Public Health Engineering and Ors.

Dr. Sourav Pradhan Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

The Burdwan Municipality Vs Subhajit Das and Ors.

Tapan Kanti Bhattacharya Vs State of W B & Ors.

Kali Dhangar Vs Eastern Coalfields Limited and Ors.

Biswanath Das Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.