Authorities must reconsider old-pension claims without rejecting them solely for want of technical resignation.

The petitioner applied for the post of Peon pursuant to a 2002 advertisement and subsequently applied for the post of Lower Grade Clerk pursuant to a 2005 advertisement. He was appointed as Peon on 12 September 2006 and joined on 15 September 2006. After being selected as Lower Grade Clerk, he tendered his resignation as Peon on 14 March 2007, expressly stating that he had obtained the other appointment; the resignation was accepted and he was relieved on 23 March 2007. He joined as Lower Grade Clerk on 27 March 2007, but his appointment was placed under the New Pension Scheme, 2004.

The Office Memorandum dated 3 March 2023 provided a one-time option for eligible Central Government employees appointed against vacancies advertised before 22 December 2003 to be covered by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972/2021. The petitioner’s application under the OM was rejected on the ground that he had resigned from the post of Peon without applying for “technical resignation.” The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his challenge, holding that he had failed to disclose his pending Lower Grade Clerk application immediately after joining as Peon, as required under the Office Memorandum dated 17 August 2016.

1. Whether the petitioner’s resignation from the post of Peon could be treated as a technical resignation despite his failure to disclose the pending Lower Grade Clerk application immediately after joining the post of Peon.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to consideration under the one-time pension option contained in the Office Memorandum dated 3 March 2023, notwithstanding the alleged non-compliance with the Office Memorandum dated 17 August 2016.

3. Whether the authorities and the Tribunal adopted an impermissibly strict and retrospective application of the 17 August 2016 Office Memorandum to an appointment and resignation occurring in 2006–2007.

The Court applied the Office Memorandum dated 17 August 2016 governing “technical resignation,” under which resignation is treated as technical where a government servant applied through the proper channel for another government post and resigns upon selection; the benefit may also apply where the earlier application was made before joining government service, subject to disclosure of the application, a specific request at the time of resignation, and satisfaction of the competent authority that the application would otherwise have been forwarded through proper channel.

The Court also applied the Office Memorandum dated 3 March 2023, a beneficial one-time scheme permitting eligible employees appointed against vacancies advertised before 22 December 2003, but covered by the New Pension Scheme, to opt for coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972/2021.

It relied on the principle that welfare schemes should receive a broad and pragmatic, rather than narrow and pedantic, interpretation, and referred to D. Ganapathi Rao v. Union of India & Others, WP.CT/47/2025 (Calcutta High Court, 18 December 2025), and Shreya Kumari Tirkey v. State of Jharkhand & Others, SLP (C) No. 27139 of 2024, for the principle that procedure is a handmaid of justice and should not be used oppressively to deny substantive relief.

The Court held that the petitioner had not suppressed the fact of his other employment opportunity: although he did not disclose the pending application when he joined as Peon, he expressly stated in his resignation letter that he had been selected as Lower Grade Clerk and intended to join that post, and the resignation was accepted without objection.

The Court observed that an unemployed person may apply for several posts and cannot reasonably be expected to anticipate selection in a future recruitment process; the petitioner could not have disclosed a selection that had not yet occurred.

Further, no appointment document, circular, or other material showed that the petitioner had been informed in 2006 of a mandatory obligation to disclose all pending employment applications. The Court therefore treated the disclosure requirement as directory in the circumstances, particularly since the 2016 OM post-dated the relevant events and the authorities had not addressed its retrospective application.

Given the beneficial purpose of the 3 March 2023 OM, rejection solely on the technical-resignation ground was considered overly strict and inconsistent with the welfare object of the scheme.

Respondent No. 5 was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim under the Office Memorandum dated 3 March 2023 without rejecting it on the ground that he had not obtained or applied for “technical resignation.” If otherwise eligible, the petitioner was to receive the necessary consequential benefits under the OM. A reasoned decision was directed to be communicated within six weeks from communication of the judgment. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without an order as to costs.