The Rajasthan High Court has held that a government employee who voluntarily resigns from service to contest legislative assembly elections cannot claim reinstatement or withdrawal of resignation under the Central Civil Services rules after losing the poll. A Division Bench comprising Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja dismissed the writ petition filed by a former Senior Auditor challenging the rejection of his application to withdraw his accepted resignation. The Court affirmed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jaipur Bench, ruling that loss in an election does not constitute a “material change in circumstances” or a “compelling reason” under Rule 26(5) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. Furthermore, the Bench held that participating in active politics breaches mandatory political neutrality under the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Neeraj Bishnoi, was employed as a Senior Auditor in the office of the Deputy Director (Audit), North Western Railway, Ajmer. Desiring to contest the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly elections scheduled for November 2023, he tendered his resignation on October 10, 2023. The competent authority accepted his resignation with effect from November 1, 2023.
Bishnoi subsequently contested the 2023 Assembly election from the Ratangarh constituency as an official candidate on a Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) ticket. Following his electoral defeat, he submitted an application on January 1, 2024, seeking to withdraw his resignation and secure reinstatement in service.
The respondent authorities rejected his request on January 29, 2024, invoking Rule 26(5) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, and Rules 3(1)(vii) and 5 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. A subsequent representation dated February 19, 2024, met the same fate on February 22, 2024. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench. On February 27, 2026, the Tribunal dismissed his Original Application, observing that his resignation was a deliberate personal choice rather than an act driven by compelling circumstances, and that participating in active politics violated statutory conduct rules. The petitioner then challenged the Tribunal’s decision before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel Amit Mathur contended that the withdrawal application had been moved within the 90-day window contemplated under Rule 26(5) of the Rules of 2021. It was argued that the petitioner was previously unaware that accepting resignation would forfeit his pensionary and retiral benefits. Discovering this consequence only after his electoral loss allegedly created a compelling reason and a material change in circumstances justifying withdrawal.
The petitioner further contended that the authorities erred in applying Rule 3(1)(vii) and Rule 5(1) & (4) of the Conduct Rules of 1964. His counsel argued that these provisions mandate political neutrality only during active government service, whereas the petitioner was not in service during the intervening period when he contested the poll. In support, reliance was placed on Supreme Court decisions in Balram Gupta v. Union of India and Anr. (1987) and Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. v. Kamlesh Rani Bhatla (2023).
Conversely, counsel for the respondents, V.P. Mathur, supported the decisions of the department and the Tribunal, submitting that the petitioner consciously resigned to venture into politics and could not claim reinstatement in the public interest upon his electoral defeat.
High Court’s Analysis and Observations
Examining the statutory scheme under Rule 26(5) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, the High Court observed that an appointing authority is permitted to allow withdrawal of resignation in public interest only if two prerequisite conditions are satisfied: first, that the resignation was tendered for compelling reasons; and second, that a material change in those compelling circumstances took place.
Rejecting the petitioner’s plea, the Bench held:
“In the present case, it is undisputed that the petitioner tendered his resignation in order to contest the election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. The same was a voluntary act on the part of the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that non-entitlement of the petitioner to pensionary benefits constitutes a compelling reason for withdrawal of his resignation. Furthermore, we find that there was no material change in the circumstances which existed at the time of tendering his resignation.”
Turning to the conduct rules, the Court addressed the petitioner’s argument that he was outside government service when he took part in the election. The Bench upheld the Tribunal’s reasoning, emphasizing that under Rule 26(5)(ii) of the Pension Rules, the conduct during the intervening period cannot be improper:
“Rule 3(1)(vii) of the Rules of 1964 provides that a Government servant shall, at all times, maintain political neutrality. Further, Rule 5(1) of the aforesaid Rules provides that no Government servant shall be a member of, or be associated with, any political party or any organisation which takes part in politics. We find that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the conduct of the petitioner was in violation of the aforesaid Rules, which prohibit political activity and mandate political neutrality at all times. The petitioner, having contested the election as an official candidate of a political party, could not have remained politically neutral. Moreover, upon acceptance of his resignation, the petitioner would be treated as having remained in continuous Government service without any break, meaning thereby that, during the period of his service, the petitioner would be considered to have undertaken the aforementioned prohibited activities.”
Addressing the precedents cited by the petitioner, the High Court distinguished both cases on facts. The Bench noted that in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Kamlesh Rani Bhatla, the withdrawal was evaluated pursuant to specific High Court directions in an earlier round of litigation. In Balram Gupta v. Union of India, the employee had withdrawn the notice of voluntary retirement before it took effect, and persistent requests from colleagues had established a bona fide change in circumstances.
Decision of the Court
Finding no illegality or error in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the High Court held the writ petition to be devoid of merit and dismissed it, disposing of all pending applications.
Case Details:
Case Title: Neeraj Bishnoi v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Ors.
Case No.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8941/2026
Bench: Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja
Date: 01/09/2026
