Facts
The applicant was initially appointed as PGT (Economics) on June 21, 2018, under a special recruitment drive for the North-East region
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5In December 2022, she applied for the same post in a general recruitment drive through the proper channel and with a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the respondents
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5-6Upon selection, she submitted a "technical resignation" from her North-East post on November 10, 2023, and joined her new posting at KV Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, on November 14, 2023
Source reference: p. 4, para. 7The respondents rejected her request to count her past service (2018–2023) for pay fixation and benefits via an order dated July 19, 2024, arguing that her initial appointment was for a restricted region and the current policy did not permit such counting
Source reference: p. 4, para. 8; p. 5, para. 10Issues
1. Whether the resignation tendered by the applicant to join a new post within the same organization after selection through the proper channel constitutes a "technical resignation"
Source reference: p. 6, para. 102. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of counting past service for pay fixation and other consequential benefits despite the initial appointment being part of a regional special recruitment drive
Source reference: p. 5, para. 10Law Applied
Para 2.1.1 of the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 17.08.2016, which stipulates that a resignation is treated as "technical" if a government servant applies through the proper channel for a post in the same or another department and is required to resign for administrative reasons upon selection
Source reference: p. 6, para. 10FR-22 and DoP&T OM dated 17.06.1965, which mandate that technical resignations carry the benefit of past service for pay fixation, leave carry-forward, and pension
Source reference: p. 7, para. 12Precedent set in Dr. Nishu v. KVS (O.A. 4999/2024), which clarified that restricted transferability in an initial post does not negate the legal consequences of a technical resignation
Source reference: p. 8, para. 13Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the applicant met all criteria for technical resignation: she applied through the proper channel, obtained prior permission, was issued an NOC, and resigned only to facilitate joining the new post
Source reference: p. 6, para. 9The court rejected the respondents' argument that the "special recruitment drive" status of the first post barred benefits, noting that the legal character of service and the protections offered by DoP&T guidelines remain independent of the recruitment source or regional restrictions
Source reference: p. 8, para. 13-14Applying the reasoning from Dr. Nishu v. KVS, the RAM determined that once a resignation is accepted as technical, the administrative consequences—specifically pay protection and service continuity—must follow automatically under the law
Source reference: p. 8, para. 15Holding
The Tribunal allowed the O.A., holding that the applicant’s resignation was indeed technical and the denial of benefits was arbitrary and contrary to government policy
The court quashed the impugned order dated July 19, 2024, and directed the respondents to count the applicant's service from June 21, 2018, for all purposes, including pay fixation. The respondents were ordered to pass consequential orders within four weeks and release all admissible arrears/benefits thereafter
Source reference: p. 9, para. 12Original Court PDF
Smt Sajida SiyahivsKVS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in