Resignation following proper channel application constitutes technical resignation, entitling employees to past service benefits.

The applicant, an Executive Secretary at the National Institute of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj (NIRDPR), applied for the post of Private Secretary in the Ministry of Rural Development (Respondent No. 1) through the proper channel in response to an advertisement

Respondent No. 2 (NIRDPR) forwarded his application and provided vigilance clearance

Upon his selection, Respondent No. 2 initially refused to relieve him and subsequently issued a communication dated 23.02.2021, asserting that "technical resignation" was inapplicable under DoP&T OM dated 17.08.2016

The applicant was directed to submit a regular resignation and an undertaking that he would not claim any lien

The applicant complied under direction but later sought to have his past service counted for benefits, which was denied via an impugned order dated 24.06.2025

1. Whether the resignation submitted by the applicant, following an application through the proper channel and subsequent selection, qualifies as a "technical resignation" under DoP&T guidelines

2. Whether the benefits of past service can be denied to an employee of an autonomous organization who moves to a government department through the proper channel

Para 2.1.1 of the DoP&T Office Memorandum (OM) dated 17.08.2016, which stipulates that resignation is a "technical formality" when a government servant applies through the proper channel for a post in another department and is selected

The rule specifies that the benefit of past service is admissible even if the word "Technical" is not mentioned in the resignation letter

The Tribunal also relied on its previous decision in Harish Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. (O.A. 1649/2019), which integrated the Supreme Court’s view that employees of autonomous bodies should not be unfairly distinguished from other government organizational employees regarding service benefits

The Tribunal observed that the applicant met all criteria for technical resignation as he applied through the proper channel with the respondents' knowledge and clearance

It found that Respondent No. 2’s communication dated 23.02.2021—which claimed technical resignation was not applicable—was a misinterpretation of the DoP&T OM

The OM explicitly protects employees who apply through the proper channel, ensuring that administrative reasons for resignation do not lead to the forfeiture of past service benefits

The court further reasoned, following the Harish Kumar precedent, that once an application is forwarded and the employee is relieved, the respondent cannot later unilaterally withdraw or modify the nature of that relief to the prejudice of the employee without following principles of natural justice

Consequently, the requirement for a "regular" resignation and an undertaking to waive lien was held to be arbitrary

The Tribunal directed the respondents to grant the applicant all consequential benefits, including the counting of past service and payment of leave encashment, within eight weeks from the receipt of the order. No order as to costs was made.