AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
The OA has been filed by one Palli Ravi Kiran, Police Constable, in the Police Department, Govt of Puducherry in the year 2018, seeking the following relief:
“ to set aside the impugned order of rejection passed by the 2nd respondent in Order bearing No. D6 / E.H(A)Pol / 2013 /Resign. (370) dated 27.04.2018 but served on the applicant through proper channel on 09.05.2018 and to pass such further orders as it may be deemed fit and proper thus
During the pendency of the Original Application, the applicant, Palli Ravi Kiran expired on 04.06.2021 due to Covid. Thereafter, his wife, being his legal heir, along with her minor sons and the mother of Palli Ravi Kiran were brought on record to prosecute the OA since according to them, the cause of action survives due to the deceased applicant.
The essential facts which are necessary for the adjudication of the the case, as submitted by the original applicant are as follows: The applicant was appointed as a Police Constable in the Police Department, Puducherry, on 09.10.2002 and served there for more than ten years. In 2013, the Puducherry Government invited applications for direct recruitment to the post of UDC/Senior Clerk in the Judicial Department. The applicant applied and was selected and appointed as Senior Clerk, with a direction to join duty at DMC, Puducherry, on or before 04.11.2013. To facilitate his joining the Judicial Department, the applicant submitted a request through proper channel on 19.09.2013 seeking technical resignation from the Police Department, as contemplated under Chapter 45 of the FRSR relating to forwarding of applications for other employment. However, when he approached the Regional Department at Yanam, he was informed that his request had not been received. As the joining deadline was approaching, the applicant was compelled to submit a resignation letter directly, which was accepted by the Police Department by order dated 31.10.2013. He thereafter joined the Judicial Department as Senior Clerk and was posted at DMC, Puducherry. The applicant had initially entered Government service in 2002, when the pension scheme was applicable to him. By reason of his resignation and subsequent appointment in the Judicial Department, he lost the benefit of more than ten years of qualifying service, despite the circumstances being beyond his control. Accordingly, the applicant approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 342 of 2017. The said OA was disposed of on 07.03.2017, directing the respondents to consider and dispose of his representation within six weeks. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 27.04.2018, rejecting the applicant’s representation without assigning any reasons. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the present OA has been filed.
The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the 2nd respondent failed to consider the applicant’s resignation in its proper perspective and in accordance with the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, particularly Rule 26. The reasons assigned in the impugned order for rejecting the applicant’s representation are arbitrary, hyper-technical and unsupported by cogent reasons. The impugned order, therefore, is liable to be set aside by this Tribunal.
It was further submitted that the applicant had tendered his resignation solely for the purpose of joining another post in a different department under the same Government, after having rendered more than ten years of service in the Police Department. Such resignation was intended to facilitate his appointment in another Government department while preserving continuity of service and consequential service benefits. The respondents’ reliance on technical objections to deny such benefits is per se unjustified and legally unsustainable. The impugned order effectively imposes an onerous condition upon the applicant, despite there being no specific rule requiring prior permission or consent of the parent department before applying for another post under the Government.
The learned counsel further submitted that Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, when read in its entirety and in the context of the applicant’s bona fide circumstances, warrants a liberal and purposive interpretation. The applicant had not resigned from Government service with an intention to sever his connection with the Government; rather, he resigned only to take up another Government appointment. Therefore, his case ought to have been considered keeping in view the object and purpose of the rule, rather than by adopting a narrow and technical approach.
It was also contended that the reasons assigned by the 2nd respondent are weak, superficial and contrary to the material available on record. The relevant rules governing resignation and continuity of service have been interpreted liberally by constitutional courts, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where the employee’s resignation was tendered in circumstances intended to facilitate appointment in another Government service. Hence, the provisions relied upon by the 2nd respondent cannot be mechanically or strictly applied to the facts of the present case.
In the circumstances, the learned counsel prayed that the impugned order dated 27.04.2018 be set aside and the respondents be directed to extend to the applicant the benefit of his earlier service in the Police Department for the purpose of pension and other consequential service benefits, in accordance with law.
In contrast the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant Palli Ravi Kiran (PC 2441) had not forwarded his application for the post of Senior Clerk in the Judicial Department, Puducherry through the Superintendent of Police (HQ), Puducherry. As per Government of India Department of Personnel Training O.M.No.28034/25/87-Estt. (A), dated 11.02.1988, it has been envisaged as follows:
When resignation a "Technical formality
"In cases where Government Servant apply for posts in the same or other departments through proper channel and on selection, they are asked to resign the previous posts for administrative reasons, the benefits of past service may, if otherwise admissible under rules, be given for purpose of fixation of pay in the new post treating the resignation as a "Technical formality".
He further submitted that Rule 26 (2) of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, envisaged as follows:-
“26(2): A resignation rules not entail for forfeiture of past service if, it has been submitted to take up with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent under the Government where service qualifies.
For the dismissal of the OA, he referred to the Government of India's decision in M.F.O.M.No.3319/EII(D)/65, dated 17.06.1965, wherein it has been clearly specified as follows:
“A Government servant intending to apply for a post or posts outside his parent office / department under the Government of India should have his application forwarded through the competent authority under whom he was serving at the time of applying for the post. Such an authority should either forward the application or withhold it accordingly as the exigencies of public service may indicate but it should not forward the application conditionally, for example, that in the vent of the applicant coming out successful, he will be required to resign his post before taking up the new one. Once the application has been forwarded unconditionally and the person concerned is offered the post applied for, he should be relieved of his duties to join the new post as a matter of course and the question of his resigning the post held by him in such circumstances should not arise. The above position holds good whether the Government servant held the post in permanent or temporary capacity, before resigning the post. Situations may arise where the application of a Government servant was not forwarded and the Government servant resigned his appointment of his own violation with a view to his taking up the new post or where there it was not possible to forward his application in the public interest on the Government servant should resign his post in the event of his taking up another post outside. In all such cases, it has been held that resignation of public service entail for forfeiture of past service.
We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side at length, perused the pleadings and materials placed on record.
The question that arises for our consideration in the present O.A. is whether the resignation tendered by the applicant can be treated as a “Technical Resignation.” Before examining the merits of the issue, it would be appropriate to consider the provisions of the DoPT O.M. dated 24.11.2022, insofar as they relate to Technical Resignation and Lien:
“Technical Resignation and Lien
This Department has issued various instructions from time to time regarding Technical Resignation and Lien. It is now decided to consolidate these instructions at one place for better understanding and guidance, as under:
2.1Technical Resignation
2.1.1As per the Ministry of Finance OM No. 3379-E.III (B)/65 dated the 17thJune, 1965,the resignationis treated as a technical formality where a Government servant has applied through proper channel for a post in the same or some other Department,and is on selection,required to resign the previous post for administrative reasons. The resignation will be treated as technical resignation if these conditions are met, even if the Government servant has not mentioned the word “Technical” while submitting his resignation. The benefit of past service,if otherwise admissible under rules, may be given in such cases. Resignation in other cases including where competent authority has not allowed the Government servant to forward the application through proper channel will not be treated as a technical resignation and benefit of past service will not be admissible. Also, no question of benefit of a resignation being treated as a technical resignation arises in case of it being from a post held on ad hocbasis.
2.1.2This benefit is also admissible to Government servants who have applied before joining the Government service and on that account the application was not routed through proper channel. The benefit of past service is allowed in such cases subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions:
(i)the Government servant should intimate the details of such application immediately on their joining;
(ii)the Government servant at the time of resignation should specifically make a request, indicating that he is resigning to take up another appointment under the Government for which he applied before joining the Government service;
(iii)the authority accepting the resignation should satisfy itself that had the employee had been in service on the date of application for the post mentioned by the employee, his application would have been forwarded through proper channel.”
We find that similar issue was considered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jagdis Saran Vs Union Of India & Ors Vide its Order dated 30.11.2018 (reported in AIRONLINE 2018 DEL 2857), the Writ Petition was allowed with the following terms:
26.It is, therefore, apparent from the contents of the aforesaid letter that the resignation of the Petitioner was indeed accepted as a technical resignation. If the Respondents had any objection to such a request, they ought to have raised such an objection at the stage of acceptance of the resignation, and stated so in clear and categorical terms. At this belated stage, the Respondents cannot take a technical plea pertaining to a procedural non-compliance on part of the Petitioner in fulfilling the conditions of the OM dated 22nd January, 1993 and 17th August, 2016, to avoid granting of benefit of more beneficial provisions under CCS Pension (Rules) 1972.
27.In the case of Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by L.Rs. v.Pramod Gupta (Smt.) (dead) by L.Rs 2003 (3) SCC 272 and The State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari (1976) 1 SCC 719, the Apex Court has categorically held that laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice.
28.The Learned Counsel for the Respondents has also relied upon the judgment of this Court titled as Deepak Kumar v. Office of the District and Sessions Judge (HQs) & Ors. No doubt the Court had an occasion to consider the applicability of the OM dated 22nd January, 1993, however, the Petitioner therein had approached the court praying for grant of technical resignation. On the other hand, in the instant case the request for technical resignation was processed and accepted by the Respondents on 30th January, 2005. Therefore, the ratio of the decision mentioned herein above is not applicable to the present case.
29.It is not only important to understand the purport and the intent of the said OM‟s but it is also imperative to give a harmonious interpretation to the provisions of the OM‟s. The Government has, in fact, under the above- mentioned OM laid down guidelines/instructions regarding technical resignation, to give benefit to Government Servants of their past services. The benefit of the past service is subject to the conditions laid down therein. Clause 2.1.2 deals with the government servants who had applied for another government service, before joining a particular Department of the Government. In such cases, the benefit of past service is allowed, subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned therein.
30.In the present case, the Petitioner joined CISF on 8th November, 2003 and served therein till such time the Petitioner had not been selected as Assistant Commandant, BSF. It was only on 15th July, 2004, that the Petitioner received an intimation from BSF confirming his appointment, about which he promptly informed Respondent No.2 vide communication dated 19th October, 2004. In reply to the said communication the Petitioner was asked to submit the same at the place of his posting. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted an application on 16th December, 2004 followed by another letter dated 24th January, 2005 for acceptance of his technical resignation. It is pertinent to note that on 16th December, 2004, the Petitioner, in fact, received a final confirmation of his selection with BSF and he notified Respondent No.2 about the said communication without any delay i.e. on the same date itself.
31.Respondent No.2 thereafter processed the resignation as „technical resignation‟ and therefore the Respondents were duly intimated about the Petitioner‟s selection in BSF. It is imperative to note that on the date of joining CISF, Petitioner‟s appointment in BSF was not confirmed. Accordingly, the Petitioner was not in a position to inform Respondent No.2 about his selection in BSF prior to joining CISF.
32.In view of the above, since Respondent No.2 has processed the application and accepted the Petitioner‟s resignation as a technical resignation, being fully aware of the Petitioner‟s selection with BSF, there is no rationale in the Respondents decision to deny the Petitioner the benefits stemming from his past services.”
The Hon’ble Orissa High Court, in Union of India and Others v. Dr. Manoj Kumar Das, W.P.(C) No. 27890 of 2025, has categorically held that resignation tendered by an employee for the purpose of joining another Government post is liable to be treated as a Technical Resignation, and that such an employee is entitled to continuity of service and the consequential benefits arising therefrom. The said judgment squarely supports the proposition that the nature and purpose of the resignation, particularly where the employee proceeds to join another Government post, are material considerations in determining whether the resignation is to be treated as a Technical Resignation.
In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Orissa High Court and the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is submitted that the resignation tendered by the applicant was liable to be treated as a Technical Resignation, particularly when the respondents themselves had acknowledged, vide Office Order dated 17.11.2014, that the applicant was proceeding to join the post of Upper Division Clerk in the Electricity Department at Yanam. The subsequent clarification contained in the Office Memorandum dated 24.11.2022 further supports the applicant’s claim that disclosure of his intention to join another Government post is a material consideration in determining the nature of his resignation.
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court squarely supports the applicant’s case, and the respondents cannot, having themselves acknowledged the applicant’s joining of another Government post, deny him the benefit of treating his resignation as a Technical Resignation merely on the ground that his application for the subsequent appointment was not routed through the proper channel. We are therefore of the view that the resignation of the applicant be held and treated as a Technical Resignation, with all consequential benefits flowing therefrom, including continuity of service and all attendant service and monetary benefits, as permissible under the applicable rules.
In the aforesaid circumstances, we find considerable force in the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant. We are of the considered view that the applicant has made out a prima facie case warranting interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.04.2018 is hereby set aside and quashed. The respondents are accordingly directed to treat the resignation tendered by the applicant as a Technical Resignation and to extend all consequential benefits arising therefrom, without payment of interest. Since the present proceedings are being prosecuted by the legal heirs of the deceased applicant, the consequential monetary and other benefits, as may be admissible in law, shall be released to the legal heirs in accordance with the applicable rules. The respondents shall complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In the result, the OA is allowed on the terms indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.