5 Dec 2023 4:42 AM GMT
The Supreme Court is set to examine whether a Central Government servant, who has given his resignation after being selected for another post, is entitled to any service benefits arising from the previous job as per the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules.
In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the Court of Munsif, Daspalla on 26.11.1990. However, prior to his joining as a clerk, the petitioner had applied for the Clerk Grade Examination for the Office of Accountant General (A & E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar. Having been selected for the said post, the appointment order was issued to him. In view of the same, the petitioner submitted his resignation from the post of Junior Clerk. The same was duly accepted and he was relieved from his duty effective 06.03.1993.
Pursuant to his joining, the petitioner made an application to treat his service as a junior clerk as pensionable service. However, the same was rejected through a memorandum dated 04.09.2009.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack. However, the tribunal ultimately dismissed his plea. Following this, the petitioner moved a writ petition before the High Court, and the same was allowed. Thus, the Union of India and the Deputy Accountant General preferred the present appeal.
The matter was listed before the Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol. The appellants submitted that as the petitioner had tendered his resignation, his prior service as a Junior Clerk cannot be taken into account as qualifying service for any service benefits. To support this contention, reliance was placed upon Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The same talks about forfeiture of service on resignation.
In view of these facts and circumstances, the Court issued notice.
Impugned Order
At the outset, the High Court opined that no reason whatsoever has been assigned while rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
“Since reason is the heart bit of any decision, in absence of such reason, this Court is inclined to hold that the said rejection is not sustainable in the eye of law in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of this Court…,” the High Court added.
Before parting, the High Court also refused to accept the argument advanced by the Opposite Party that the resignation given by the petitioner, being not a technical resignation, cannot be accepted. This was argued in terms of guidelines contained in F.R-22.
For convenience, F.R. 22 contains the following stipulations. (i) The Govt. Servant should have intimated the details of such application immediately on his joining. (ii) The Govt. Servant should make a specific request at the time of his resignation that the same may be treated as “technical resignation” (iii) The authority accepting the resignation should be satisfied that had the employee been in service on the date of application for the post mentioned by the employee, his application would have been through proper channel.
Notwithstanding, the Court was of the view that the Registrar, Civil Courts, Puri have duly accepted the resignation tendered by the petitioner.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA vs. ASHOK KUMAR ACHARYA., Diary No.- 36635 – 2023