Karnataka HC Upholds Old-Pension Denial To Officer Who Resigned State Job And Joined University Under New Scheme

In brief

The question

1. Whether acceptance of the petitioner’s resignation under Rule 252(b) of the KCSRs preserved continuity of his earlier service for pension purposes

The court held

The High Court held that the petitioner’s past service did not entitle him to pension under the Old Pension Scheme and that the Tribunal had correctly declined to interfere with the State’s decision.

It also directed

Finding no merit in the petition, the Court rejected the writ petition.

01Facts

The petitioner served as a Second Division Assistant at the High Court of Karnataka from 7 April 2001, then joined the State’s Department of Employment and Training as an Assistant Employment Officer.

p. 4

His resignation from the earlier post was accepted under Rule 252(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSRs) to enable him to take up the new appointment

p. 4

He was later appointed Farm Manager at the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, on 11 December 2008, subject to the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme, and Agricultural Officer in the State Agriculture Department on 1 September 2012.

pp. 4–5, 7–8

The State rejected his request to count his past service towards pension under the Old Pension Scheme.

pp. 3, 7–8

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed his application challenging that rejection; he then petitioned the High Court.

pp. 3, 7–8

02Issues

i.1. Whether acceptance of the petitioner’s resignation under Rule 252(b) of the KCSRs preserved continuity of his earlier service for pension purposes

pp. 5, 8–9

ii.2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to count his earlier service and receive pension under the Old Pension Scheme, including by relying on the cited Office Memorandum

pp. 5–6, 9–10

03Law Applied

Rule 252(b) of the KCSRs permits an employee, with the prior employer’s permission, to take up a new appointment; acceptance of a resignation under that rule does not, by itself, confer a right to treat the new appointment as continuous service.

p. 8

The State’s New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme applied from 1 April 2006, and the petitioner’s 2008 University appointment expressly placed him under that scheme.

pp. 8–9

The Court held that the Office Memorandum relied on by the petitioner did not apply because, after resigning from State service and joining the University, he had ceased to be a Government servant.

pp. 9–10

04Reasoning

The Court treated the petitioner’s appointments at the University and later in the Agriculture Department as fresh appointments, not continuations of his earlier State service.

p. 8

Rule 252(b) enabled him to take up another appointment but did not preserve continuity or create an entitlement to Old Pension Scheme benefits.

p. 8

In addition, he accepted the University appointment after the new pension scheme took effect and subject to its express pension condition; his prior Government service therefore did not bring him within the Office Memorandum’s protection.

pp. 8–10

The Court distinguished *Dr. S.N. Vasudevan v. State of Karnataka*, noting that it concerned service with the Karnataka Seed Certification Agency and did not involve the same appointment condition.

p. 10