LI Network
Published on: December 05, 2023 at 12:20 IST
In a significant legal consideration, the Supreme Court is poised to examine the entitlement of a Central Government employee, who resigns after securing another position, to receive service benefits under the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules from their prior job.
The case at hand involves a petitioner appointed as a Junior Clerk in the Court of Munsif, Daspalla, on November 26, 1990. Preceding his assumption of duties as a clerk, the petitioner had applied for the Clerk Grade Examination for the Office of Accountant General (A & E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar.
Upon successful selection for the said post, an appointment order was issued. Consequently, the petitioner resigned from the position of Junior Clerk, a resignation duly accepted, relieving him of his duties effective March 6, 1993.
Subsequent to joining the new role, the petitioner sought to classify his service as a junior clerk as pensionable. However, this application was rejected through a memorandum dated September 4, 2009.
Discontented with this decision, the petitioner initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in Cuttack, which subsequently dismissed the plea. Undeterred, the petitioner then pursued a writ petition before the High Court, where the appeal was allowed. The Union of India and the Deputy Accountant General have now appealed this decision.
During the recent hearing before the Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol, the appellants argued that, as the petitioner had resigned, his previous service as a Junior Clerk cannot be considered for qualifying service benefits, citing Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which addresses the forfeiture of service on resignation.
In response to these contentions, the Court has issued notice for further examination.
Regarding the earlier decision, the High Court expressed dissatisfaction with the rejection of the petitioner’s claim, emphasizing that no explicit reason had been provided for the denial.
The High Court found this lack of reasoning to render the rejection legally unsustainable, referring to decisions by the Honorable Apex Court and the High Court.
Additionally, the High Court dismissed the argument that the petitioner’s resignation, not meeting the criteria for a technical resignation as outlined in F.R-22, should be disregarded. F.R. 22 outlines specific conditions, including the immediate intimation of the job application upon joining, a specific request for the resignation to be treated as a “technical resignation” at the time of resignation, and the authority accepting the resignation being satisfied that the employee, if in service on the date of the application, would have followed the proper channel.
Despite this, the Court maintained that the resignation had been duly accepted by the Registrar, Civil Courts, Puri.
CASE TITLE: UNION OF INDIA v. ASHOK KUMAR ACHARYA
