Calcutta High Court
WPA/28768/2022 of SUBRATA SIL Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. on 23 September 2026
2026 Ct. No. 18 Ab WPA 28768 of 2022 Shri Subrata Sil Vs. Union of India and others. --------------- Mr. Joydeep Sen, Ms. Ananya Neogi, Ms. Anushka Ghosh. … for the petitioner. Mr. S. Das, Mr. A . Bhattacharyya, Mr. Zainab Kamal. … for the respondent nos. 2 to 5. 1. The petitioner is
23.09.
Ct. No. 18
Ab
WPA 28768 of 2022
Shri Subrata Sil
Vs.
Union of India and others.
---------------
Mr. Joydeep Sen,
Ms. Ananya Neogi,
Ms. Anushka Ghosh.
… for the petitioner.
Mr. S. Das,
Mr. A. Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Zainab Kamal.
… for the respondent nos. 2 to 5.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved that he has not been granted the pay protection for a lateral movement by way of transfer.
2. The petitioner was initially employed with the Reserve Bank of India and has thereafter transferred to the India Government Mint. Since both organizations are Government Organizations, the petitioner resigned from the Reserve Bank of India to take up his subsequent appointment.
3. This issue of resignation from service is guided by the Office Memorandum dated February 11, 1988, which stipulates that when a Government servant is in lateral movement of transfer, he may seek pay protection after giving a resignation, which is termed as a “Technical Resignation” under the said Rules.
4. In the present case, the petitioner’s resignation was specified to be one on personal problems. Thus, the resignation was on personal ground and cannot be said to be a technical resignation, which would protect his pay and consequential benefits, upon transfer from one Government Organization to another.
5. Mr. Sen, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has fairly submitted that the resignation was on personal ground and cannot be construed to be a technical resignation.
6. In view of the afore-stated, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
7. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
8. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)