Technical Resignation and Discontinuity in Service Entitle Government Employee to Pro-Rata Pensionary Benefits

The applicant was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (1976), then as a Primary School Teacher (1979), Graduate Trained Teacher (1980), and Post Graduate Trained Teacher (1983) under the Andaman Nicobar Administration.

In 1995, he was appointed as Principal in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) on deputation and was subsequently absorbed there on 13.07.1998.

He tendered a technical resignation from his parent department effective 20.07.1998.

Later, following a UPSC selection, he joined as Principal (Group 'A') under the same Administration on 24.11.1998 after a service gap of approximately four months.

He retired as Deputy Director on 01.11.2014.

The respondents denied pro-rata pension for his 1976–1998 service, citing a bar on earning two pensions for continuous service.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to pro-rata pensionary benefits for service rendered from 05.04.1976 to 19.07.1998 under Government of India O.M. dated 09.01.1984.

2. Whether the claim is barred by Rule 7(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, concerning the earning of two pensions for the same continuous service.

3. Whether the transition from a Group 'C' post to a Group 'A' post through UPSC, punctuated by a service break, constitutes "same continuous service".

Rule 7(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which prohibits a government servant from earning two pensions in the same service or post or by the same continuous service.

Government of India O.M. dated 09.01.1984 and O.M. dated 29.08.1984, which mandate pro-rata retirement benefits for employees absorbed in autonomous bodies through proper channels.

State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (2013), affirming that pension is a right to property under Article 300-A and not a bounty.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's resignation was "technical," which preserves past service benefits under the 1984 OMs.

It rejected the respondents' reliance on Rule 7(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, noting that the applicant was not seeking "dual" pension but pro-rata settlement for a distinct period.

The court observed that the service was not "continuous" because: (a) there was an admitted break in service from July to November 1998; (b) the nature of the posts changed from Group 'C' (non-gazetted) to Group 'A' (gazetted); and (c) the second appointment was through a fresh UPSC recruitment process.

The Tribunal highlighted that the Administration had previously admitted the applicant's eligibility for pro-rata pension in 2004, making their subsequent rejection arbitrary and a violation of Articles 14 and 16.

The respondents were directed to pass a reasoned order granting these benefits along with interest at the rate applicable to GPF due to the erroneous deprivation of funds and the exercise must be completed within four weeks from the receipt of the order.