Prior railway service following a permitted technical resignation counts toward subsequent service benefits.

The applicant entered Railway service as a Track Maintainer in Trichy Division on 18 June 2014.

After being selected by the Railway Recruitment Cell for a Helper post in Trivandrum Division, he obtained a no-objection certificate, tendered a technical resignation, was relieved from Trichy Division on 11 December 2015, and joined Trivandrum Division on 15 December 2015.

He sought recognition of his Trichy service for purposes including pay fixation, increments, and length of service.

The respondents acknowledged that he had tendered a technical resignation but contended that the service records did not establish the necessary details for allowing past-service benefits.

1. Whether the applicant’s service as a Track Maintainer in Trichy Division from 18 June 2014 to 11 December 2015 was liable to be counted with his subsequent service in Trivandrum Division for increments, pay fixation, and other service benefits.

2. Whether the applicant’s move to Trivandrum Division followed a technical resignation submitted with proper permission, so that his prior service would not be forfeited.

Rule 41(1) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 provides that resignation ordinarily results in forfeiture of past service; Rule 41(2) creates an exception where resignation is submitted to take up another qualifying appointment under the Government with proper permission.

The Tribunal also referred to the corresponding provision in Rule 26(1)–(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and to Article 418(b) of the Civil Service Regulations, under which resignation to take up another appointment with proper permission is not treated as resignation from public service.

Relying on Sreejesh K. v. Union of India & Others, ILR 2017 (1) Kerala 1, the Tribunal noted that the applicable provisions should be interpreted to give effect to the beneficial purpose of preserving past service, and that statutory rules prevail over inconsistent executive instructions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s claim of having tendered a technical resignation was not disputed; the respondents themselves acknowledged the resignation, while the relevant records were held by the Trichy Division and the respondents did not explain why the resignation was absent from the service records.

The applicant had obtained an NOC, was relieved from Trichy Division, and joined Trivandrum Division without a break in service; the posts carried the same pay and grade pay.

In those circumstances, the Tribunal treated the prior service as countable for collateral service purposes, including increments and other benefits, notwithstanding that the applicant was not covered by the pension rules because he entered service after 1 January 2004.

The Original Application was allowed, with no order as to costs.