Intervening period between retrospective resignation and subsequent joining constitutes continuous service, but recovery of honorarium obtained via misrepresentation is legally sustainable.

The applicant, a Medical Officer in the Health and Medical Education Department, joined as a Senior Resident at SKIMS (Respondent No. 3) on 18.09.2018 following a High Court direction in SWP No. 2141/2018.

On 19.04.2021, he tendered his resignation from SKIMS effective 25.04.2021.

Respondent No. 3 formally accepted the resignation only on 28.08.2021, though retrospectively from 25.04.2021.

Due to this delay, the applicant could only report back to his parent department on 28.08.2021, leading to an alleged break in service.

Furthermore, SKIMS initiated a recovery of Rs. 4,35,825/- (Annexure-A2), asserting the applicant misrepresented himself as a "Non-PSC" candidate to draw a higher honorarium while actually holding a substantive government post.

1. Whether the interruption in service from 25.04.2021 to 28.08.2021 is attributable to the applicant or the respondents.

2. Whether the intervening period constitutes a disqualifying break in service for continuity, seniority, and regularization.

3. Whether the recovery of Rs. 4,35,825/- on account of excess honorarium is legally sustainable.

Adjudication of service matters under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Principle of retrospectivity in administrative orders: an employer cannot cite administrative delay to cause "adverse civil consequences" to an employee.

Doctrine established in Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand (2012) 8 SCC 417: recovery of public money paid in excess is mandated if it resulted from misrepresentation or fault attributable to the employee.

Regarding the service break, the Tribunal reasoned that since Respondent No. 3 chose to accept the resignation with retrospective effect from 25.04.2021, any delay in issuing the formal order until August 2021 was purely administrative and not the applicant's fault.

This was supported by attendance reports showing the applicant remained available for duty during the wait for adjustment orders.

On the issue of recovery, the Tribunal found that the applicant had executed a sworn affidavit falsely claiming to be a "Non-PSC" candidate not working in the H&ME Department.

The Tribunal held that since the applicant’s status remained that of a Medical Officer, he was ineligible for the higher honorarium scale intended for non-government candidates, and the primary responsibility for this factual nondisclosure lay with the applicant.

The Tribunal upheld the recovery of Rs. 4,35,825/-, finding no ground to interfere due to the applicant’s incorrect declarations, and directed Respondent No. 3 to forward the service book to the parent department within eight weeks.