SHRI.EROTU KURMA RAO vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR]

PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY

WP.CT/4/2026

SHRI EROTU KURMA RAO … PETITIONER

VS.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS … RESPONDENTS

For the petitioner : Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar
Mr. Samson Stephen

For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar

Heard on : September 02, 2026 &
September 03, 2026

Reserved on : September 03, 2026

Judgment delivered on : September 07, 2026

Judgment uploaded on : September 07, 2026


AMRITA SINHA, J.

th

1. The order dated 18 September, 2025 passed by the learned
Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 351/1669/A&N/2024 is
impugned in the instant writ petition.
2. By the said order the Original Application filed by the
petitioner stood dismissed. The learned Tribunal held that the

2

petitioner failed to intimate the details of his pending application for
job in the post of Lower Grade Clerk immediately after joining the
post of Peon. The petitioner failed to fulfill the condition mentioned
th
in paragraph 2.1.2(i) of the Office Memorandum dated 17 August,
2016 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel,
Public grievance and Pension (Department of Personnel and
Training). The Tribunal held that the respondent authority rightly
rejected the prayer of the petitioner for grant of Old Pension Scheme
rd
as per Office Memorandum dated 03 March, 2023.

3. The facts of the case are that in response to a paper
publication in May, 2002 inviting applications for filling up vacancy
in the post of Peon, the petitioner applied for the same. He also
applied for job in response to another paper publication for the post
of Lower Grade Clerk in the year 2005.

4. The written test for the post of Peon was conducted in March,
2005. He was successful in the same and an appointment order was
th
issued in his favour in the post of Peon on 12 September, 2006.
The petitioner reported for duty before the Divisional Forest Officer,
th
Diglipur on 15 September, 2006.
5. While discharging duties as Peon, the result of the
recruitment process in the post of Lower Grade Clerk was published

3

in the year 2007. The petitioner was successful in the same and an
th
appointment order was issued in his favour on 12 March, 2007.
6. The petitioner immediately tendered resignation in the post of
th
Peon on 14 March, 2007 specifically disclosing that he got selected
for appointment in the post of Lower Grade Clerk and he intended to
join the said post. His resignation letter was forwarded by the
Divisional Forest Officer, Diglipur to the Principal Chief Conservator
th
of Forests on 15 March, 2007 and the same stood accepted vide
th
order dated 20 March, 2007 without invoking any clause of Rules.
He was relived from his duties of Peon with effect from the afternoon
rd
of 23 March, 2007.
7. The petitioner joined the post of Lower Grade Clerk
th
immediately thereafter on 27 March, 2007 and is serving
uninterruptedly without any blemish. The appointment order of the
petitioner in the post of Lower Grade Clerk clearly mentioned that
he would be governed by the New Pension Scheme, 2004.
rd
8. An Office Memorandum dated 03 March, 2023 was
published by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievance and Pension (Department of Personnel and Training)
providing one-time option to be covered under the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 (now 2021) to the Central Government civil employee
appointed against a post or vacancy which was advertised/notified

4

for recruitment/appointment prior to the date of notification for New
nd
Pension Scheme that is 22 December, 2003 and is covered under
st
the New Pension Scheme on joining service on or after 01 January,
2004. Such option was to be exercised by the concerned government
st
servant latest by 31 March, 2023.
th

9. The petitioner, on 08 August, 2023, applied in terms of the
aforesaid Office Memorandum (OM) seeking coverage under the old
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. His application stood rejected by the
th
authority by communication dated 30 October, 2023 with the
remark ‘the government servant resigned from the post of Peon
directly without applying for ‘technical resignation’. Be it mentioned
that in the same order of rejection, the prayer of one Shri D.
Ganapathi Rao seeking coverage under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
was also rejected.

10. The petitioner challenged the order of rejection before the
learned Tribunal by filing the Original Application. Being dissatisfied
with dismissal of the same, the instant writ petition has been filed.
11. Specific submission of the petitioner is that the ground for
rejecting his prayer is bad and liable to be set aside. It has been
submitted that the resignation letter clearly disclosed that as he got
another job, accordingly, he tendered his resignation. The petitioner

5

never suppressed his selection in the post of Lower Grade Clerk at
the time of submitting his resignation in the post of Peon.
12. It has been contended that such resignation, being duly
accepted by the employer, the ground for rejecting his prayer for
rd
granting benefit in terms of OM dated 03 March, 2023, is liable to
be set aside.
th
13. The OM dated 17 August, 2016 mentioning the guidelines
for technical resignation has been placed before this Court. The
clause for technical resignation mentions that resignation is treated
as a technical formality where a government servant applied
through proper channel for a post in the same or other department,
and is on selection required to resign from the previous post for
administrative reasons. The resignation will be treated as technical
resignation if the conditions are met, even if the government servant
has not mentioned the word ‘technical’ while submitting his
resignation.
14. The said OM also prescribes that the benefit of technical
resignation is admissible to government servant who has applied
before joining the government service and on that account the
application was not routed through proper channel subject to the
condition that (i) the government servant should intimate the details
of such application immediately on joining; (ii) the government

6

servant at the time of resignation should specifically make a request
indicating that he was 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 been in service on the
date of application for the post mentioned by the employee, his
application would have been forwarded through proper channel.
15. The applicability of the pension scheme as mentioned in OM
th
dated 17 August, 2016 states that where government servants,
st
who originally joined government service prior to 01 January,
2004, apply for posts in the same or other departments and on
selection are asked to tender technical resignation, the past services
are counted towards pension if the post is in a pensionable
establishment.

16. According to the petitioner, as he disclosed the reason for
resignation at the time of joining the new post, as such, his
resignation ought to be treated as technical resignation and he
ought to be provided the coverage under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
rd
in terms of OM dated 03 March, 2023.
17. It has been submitted that the aforesaid D. Ganapathi Rao
whose prayer for coverage under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 stood
rejected by the authority and affirmed by the learned Tribunal was

7

allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated
th
18 December, 2025 passed in WP.CT/47/2025 , (D. Ganapathi
Rao vs. Union of India and others (2025:CHC-PB:87-DB)).
18. It has been submitted that the petitioner and the said D.
Ganapathi Rao stand in the same footing. As D. Ganapathi Rao got
selected in the post of Primary School Teacher within a very short
period of his application, as such, he got a chance to tender his
resignation from the post of Peon disclosing the details immediately
thereafter. The petitioner prays that similar relief as granted in the
case of D. Ganapathi Rao be also allowed in his favour.
19. Learned advocate representing the respondents opposes the
submission of the petitioner. It has been submitted that the
petitioner ought to have intimated the details of his prior pending
application for job in the post of Lower Grade Clerk when he joined
the post of Peon. As the petitioner failed to disclose such prior
application, he would be governed by the New Pension Scheme and
not the old CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
20. According to the respondents, the petitioner would be bound
by all the rules and regulations mentioned in his order of
appointment which mentions that, in respect of matters not
specified in the order of appointment, his service shall be governed

8

by the relevant rules and orders applicable to employees of similar
categories working under the Administration.
21. According to the respondents, disclosure of applications for
job made prior to joining the post of Peon was obligatory on the part
of the petitioner. As the petitioner failed to act in terms of the OM
th
dated 17 August, 2016, he cannot be extended the coverage of the
rd
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in terms of the OM dated 03 March,
2023.
th
22. D. Ganapathi Rao (supra) interpreted the OM dated 17
August, 2016 and laid down that the disclosure ought to have been
made within a reasonable period of time. The petitioner disclosed
the fact of previous application only after he got selected for the job
resulting in delay of nearly six months. Hence, the benefit extended
to D. Ganapathi Rao ought not to be allowed I case of the petitioner.
23. The respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
24. We have heard and considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of both the parties and have perused the materials on record.
25. It appears from records that in response to the advertisement
of vacancy published in the year 2002, the petitioner applied for the
post of Peon. Before the selection process being finalized, he applied
in response to the vacancy noticed published in the newspaper in
the year 2005 for the post of Lower Grade Clerk. He got selected as

9

Peon in the year September, 2006 and joined the post. He also got
selected in the post of Lower Grade Clerk in March, 2007.
26. On being selected in the post of Lower Grade Clerk in March,
2007 he tendered resignation in the post of Peon. According to the
authority, at the time of joining the post of Peon, the petitioner
ought to have disclosed that he also applied in response to an
advertisement in the post of Lower Grade Clerk. On account of such
non-disclosure, the benefit of extension of coverage under CCS
rd
(Pension) Rules, 1972, as per OM dated 03 March, 2023, has been
disallowed.
27. It is common knowledge that an unemployed youth files
several applications simultaneously whenever a vacancy notice is
published. Getting a job becomes the primary concern. There is no
bar in applying for job in various departments at the same time.
There is always uncertainty with regards to selection in a public
recruitment process. One cannot vouch that he will be selected for
the job in a recruitment process as and when he files application.
An unemployed youth accepts the very first job offer where he is
selected as the next one is always uncertain.
28. Here, the petitioner was lucky enough to be selected in both
the recruitment processes applied by him. When he was serving in
the post of Peon, he learnt that he got selected for the post of Lower

10

Grade Clerk. The petitioner opted to join the post of Lower Grade
Clerk and, accordingly, tendered resignation in the post of Peon. He
duly disclosed the ground for resignation in his letter of resignation.
The said resignation letter was accepted.
29. At the time of joining in the post of Peon, the petitioner was
never specifically informed that he ought to have disclosed the
details of all other applications for job that he made. No document
has been produced by the respondents to suggest that the
appointment order in the post of Peon prescribes that the employee
is required to disclose about all other pending applications for job
made by the employee.
30. No document has been produced before this Court to show
that the petitioner was intimated by his employer about his
obligation to disclose that he applied for job elsewhere. A newly
appointed employee is not supposed to know about all orders,
circulars, OMs covering the field. Had there been such mandatory
stipulation for disclosure, the employer should have brought the
same to the notice of the employee.
31. The petitioner being unaware of such requirement did not
disclose about his pending job application at the time of joining in
the post of Peon. However, at the time of tendering resignation, he
distinctly mentioned that as he got selected in the post of Lower

11

Grade Clerk and he intended to join the said post, he was tendering
his resignation. The authority never raised any issue at that point of
time.
32. Had the petitioner been intimated about his selection to the
post of Lower Grade Clerk at an early date, he could have disclosed
the same immediately after joining the post of Peon as was the case
of D. Ganapathi Rao. The petitioner could not have professed that
he would be selected for appointment as Lower Grade Clerk. Had he
not been selected for the job of Lower Grade Clerk he would have
continued in the post of Peon and in that case, he would have been
eligible for the benefit of reverting to the old pension scheme in
rd
terms of OM dated 03 March, 2023.
33. As the petitioner applied in response to a public advertisement
of vacancy, there is no scope for any suppression or
th
misrepresentation of fact by the petitioner. The OM dated 17
August, 2016 appears to be operative prospectively. It is evident
from the opening paragraph of the said Office Memorandum that the
same came to be published as the department continued to receive
frequent reference on the issue of technical resignation. The parent
th
OM in this regard appears to be the OM dated 17 June, 1965.
34. By merely retaining an Office Memorandum in the file does
not serve the purpose. Any Government Order, Circular or OM

12

which deals with regular service issues, ought to be widely
published so that the same remains in the knowledge of all
concerned. It is an obligation on the part of the employer to bring to
the notice of the employee the formalities, including the disclosures,
required to be complied with by an employee immediately when he
joins service. If the appointment order does not mandatorily specify
the requirements and the obligations of disclosure, then it has to be
taken that the same are directory in nature. Non-disclosure ought
not to cause any disadvantage to the employee at a later date.

35. Here the cause of action of the petitioner to approach the
Tribunal was the rejection of his prayer for extending coverage
rd
under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in terms of OM dated 03 March,
2023 by which one-time option scheme was floated by the Ministry.
Till prior thereto the petitioner never faced any issue for not
disclosing the details of his pending job application at the time of
joining his earlier post of Peon. The petitioner could not have
anticipated that such a one-time scheme would be floated by the
authority during his service tenure.
rd

36. OM dated 03 March, 2023 has been published as a welfare
measure of the employees who applied for appointment against the
nd
vacancy prior to 22 December, 2003. Admittedly, the petitioner
applied for the post of Peon in the year 2002 and got selected in the
year 2006. It does not appear that there has been any mala fide

13

intention on the part of the petitioner in not disclosing his pending
application for the post of Lower Grade Clerk in the year 2005 at the
time of joining as Peon in September, 2006.
37. By the impugned order the learned Tribunal dismissed the
th
prayer of the petitioner solely relying upon OM dated 17 August,
2016. The order of the learned Tribunal does not mention as to
whether the said OM would be applicable retrospectively in respect
of the appointment made in the year 2006.
38. The learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated the beneficial
nature of the OM relying on which the petitioner sought coverage.
Such strict and technical approach ought not to have been adopted
for rejecting a welfare scheme meant for the benefit of the
employees.
39. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of D.
th
Ganapathi Rao (supra) took note of the order dated 04 September,
2025 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil)
27139 of 2024 in the case of Shreya Kumari Tirkey vs. The State
of Jharkhand and others wherein the Court held that procedure
being a handmaiden to justice, should never be made a tool to deny
justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use.
The Court was pleased to set aside the impugned order of rejection
passed in respect of D. Ganapathi Rao.

14


40. It appears that the petitioner and the said D. Ganapathi Rao
(supra) more or less are similarly placed. The rejection order of D.
Ganapathi Rao (supra) has been set aside by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court, albeit on a different ground. In the facts and
circumstances of the said case the issue of retrospective application
th
of the OM dated 17 August, 2016 was, however, not required to be
urged. Here, the same becomes very relevant.
41. In case of interpretation of welfare Scheme both Courts and
Government authorities should take a broad and pragmatic view
and not a narrow and pedantic view so that the welfare object is
fulfilled.
42. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we are of the
considered opinion that the authority applied a very strict and
constrictive approach to consider the application of the petitioner
seeking coverage under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in terms of OM
rd
dated 03 March, 2023. The entire purpose of the welfare scheme
will be frustrated if such approach is adopted by the authority. The
learned Tribunal also dealt the matter in an extremely myopic and
restrictive manner and failed to interfere with the impugned order of
rejection.
43. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to set aside the rejection
order passed by the authority and the impugned order passed by

15

the learned Tribunal upholding the same. The respondent No.5 is
directed to reconsider the prayer made by the petitioner seeking
rd
benefit in terms of OM dated 03 March, 2023 without raising the
issue of technical resignation. If the petitioner is found otherwise
rd
eligible for grant of benefit under the OM dated 03 March, 2023,
then necessary consequential follow-up steps shall be taken by the
authority.
44. A reasoned decision shall be taken in the matter and
communicated to the petitioner at the earliest but positively within a
period of six weeks from the date of communication of this
judgment.
45. WP.CT/4/2026 stands disposed of.
46. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
47. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this
judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

( AMRITA SINHA, J. )
I agree.


(BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J. )