Past Service Rendered Prior to Technical Resignation Cannot Be Counted for Seniority and Promotional Eligibility.

The applicant was selected through the SSC Combined Graduate Level Examination 2006 and joined as an Inspector (Central Excise) in the Visakhapatnam Zone in 2009.

Following a subsequent selection via the 2008 examination, he was posted to the Bhubaneswar Zone. He submitted a "technical resignation" from the Visakhapatnam Zone, which was accepted on 20.12.2010, and he joined the Bhubaneswar Zone on 22.12.2010.

The applicant filed this Original Application (OA) seeking a direction to the respondents to count his past service rendered in the Visakhapatnam Commissionerate toward the minimum qualifying service required for promotion to the next higher grade in the Bhubaneswar Zone.

1. Whether the service rendered by a government servant in a previous zone prior to a technical resignation and fresh appointment in a new zone can be counted toward the eligibility/qualifying service for promotion in the new cadre.

Fundamental Rule (FR) 13, which governs the retention of lien on a post.

Rule 26(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which provides that resignation to take up another appointment with proper permission does not entail forfeiture of past service for pensionary purposes.

DoPT OM No. 28020/1/2010-Estt.(C) dated 17.08.2016, which clarifies that while technical resignation protects seniority in a substantive post, it does not necessarily allow counting of disparate service for promotion in a new department.

Amit Singh v. Ravindra Nath Pandey (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1559) regarding the determination of seniority based on the date of joining a particular cadre.

The Tribunal adopted the reasoning from a companion case, Rajesh Kumar Arya (OA 250/2024), noting that the applicant joined the Bhubaneswar Commissionerate as a fresh recruit following a new selection process in 2008.

The Tribunal reasoned that under FR 13 and Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, "protection of service" largely relates to lien and pensionary benefits rather than granting eligibility for promotion in a completely different cadre.

The Tribunal analyzed DoPT OM dated 17.08.2016 and concluded that paragraph 2.6 specifically excludes counting period spent in another department for qualifying service for promotion if a servant rejoins a substantive post; by extension, the applicant could not claim past service for promotion in a new cadre without an express statutory rule.

The Tribunal further observed that the applicant was "borne in the cadre" of Bhubaneswar only on 22.12.2010; granting his request would mid-stream affect the seniority of other officers already in that cadre, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The direct answer to the issue is that in the absence of specific statutory rules allowing such clubbing of service for promotion, the date of joining the new cadre remains the sole criterion for eligibility.

The OA was dismissed as being devoid of merit.