Resignation to join another government post must be treated as technical resignation despite procedural non-compliance.

Palli Ravi Kiran, a Police Constable in the Puducherry Police Department from 9 October 2002, was selected in 2013 for a post in another Government department.

He sought technical resignation, but his application was not received by the Police Department; as the joining deadline approached, he submitted a resignation directly, which was accepted on 31 October 2013.

He then joined the other department.

The respondents maintained that his application had not been forwarded through the proper channel and rejected his request to count his earlier service for pension purposes.

After an earlier application resulted in a direction to consider his representation, the rejection was challenged in this OA.

Ravi Kiran died during its pendency, and his wife, minor children and mother were brought on record to continue the proceedings.

1. Whether Ravi Kiran’s resignation from the Police Department, tendered to take up another Government appointment, should be treated as a “technical resignation” despite his application not having been forwarded through the proper channel.

2. Whether his legal heirs were entitled to the consequential service and monetary benefits arising from that treatment, subject to the applicable rules.

Rule 26(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 provides that resignation does not entail forfeiture of past service where it is submitted, with proper permission, to take up another qualifying Government appointment.

The Government of India decision dated 17 June 1965 and the DoPT OM dated 11 February 1988 describe circumstances in which resignation may be treated as a technical formality and past-service benefits allowed.

The DoPT OM dated 24 November 2022 consolidates the relevant instructions: ordinarily, the employee must have applied through the proper channel; it also provides for specified circumstances in which the benefit may apply where the employee applied before joining Government service.

The Tribunal also referred to Jagdis Saran v. Union of India and Union of India v. Dr. Manoj Kumar Das in support of treating a resignation connected with taking up another Government post as technical.

The Tribunal considered the purpose of the resignation and the applicant’s move to another Government post, rather than treating the absence of a proper-channel application as decisive.

It relied on the respondents’ acknowledgment, in an office order dated 17 November 2014, that Ravi Kiran was proceeding to join another Government post, and on the cited decisions concerning technical resignation.

On that basis, it concluded that the resignation should be treated as technical and that the respondents could not deny the benefit solely because the application had not been routed through the proper channel.

It set aside the rejection order dated 27 April 2018 and directed the respondents to extend the consequential benefits admissible under the applicable rules, including continuity of service and attendant service and monetary benefits.

Benefits were to be released to the legal heirs, without interest, within three months of receipt of the order.

The OA was allowed, with no order as to costs.