A serving officer sought a direction that authorities decide his pending resignation application. The court disposed of the writ petition directing a decision within two weeks, and restrained any coercive action until one week after the decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~14
versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Balendu Shekhar, CGSC, Mr. Krishna Chaitanya, GP with Mr. Rajkumar Maurya and Mr. Divyansh Singh Dev, Advs. for UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
ORDER (ORAL)
% 02.07.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks direction to the respondents to take a decision on the petitioner’s application for resignation.
2. Issue notice.
3. Notice is accepted on behalf of the respondents by Mr. Balendu Shekhar.
4. Rule, returnable forthwith.
5. In view of the limited prayer, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the petitioner’s application for resignation, which is pending since 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AAKANSHAW.P.(C ) 8789/2025 SHARMA Signing Da te:0 4.07.2025 17:49:52
Page 1 of 2
April 2025 within a period of two weeks from today and to communicate the decision, as and when taken, forthwith to the petitioner.
6. Needless to say, if the petitioner continues to remain aggrieved by the said decision, the rights of the petitioner in accordance with law shall remain reserved.
7. The petition is disposed of.
8. We note that, in para 5 of the stay application filed with this writ petition, an assertion has been made that the respondents have released an apprehension roll against the petitioner and have given directions to the police to apprehend him.
9. Though Mr. Balendu Shekhar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, as well as the officer who is instructing him, submit that they are unaware of any such impending action, we deem it appropriate to direct that, till the decision is taken on the petitioner’s application for resignation and for one week thereafter, no coercive action shall be taken against him.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
JULY 2, 2025 /an
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AAKANSHAW.P.(C ) 8789/2025 SHARMA Signing Da te:0 4.07.2025 17:49:52
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Should the respondents be directed to decide the petitioner's pending application for resignation?
Dy Comdt Manish Sharma
Union of India
C. Hari Shankar
Ajay Digpaul
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
