Facts
The applicant was initially appointed as a regular Construction Helper on 04.06.2003 in the Electricity Department, Puducherry, and later promoted to Helper
Source reference: p. 2In 2011, after obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from his parent department, he applied for the post of Trainee School Librarian (contractual) through the proper channel
Source reference: p. 2Upon selection, he tendered a "technical resignation" and joined the new post on 04.01.2011
Source reference: p. 2, 10His services were regularized on 10.09.2012
Source reference: p. 10The respondents rejected his request for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), placing him under the New Pension Scheme (NPS) on the grounds that his regular appointment in the Education Department occurred in 2012 and that his resignation from the regular post in the Electricity Department entailed forfeiture of past service
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether a technical resignation tendered with prior permission to join a contractual post results in the forfeiture of past service for pensionary purposes.
Source reference: p. 3, 102. Whether service rendered on a contractual basis followed by regularization without interruption can be counted as qualifying service under the CCS (Pension) Rules.
Source reference: p. 6, 8Law Applied
Rule 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which allows a person initially engaged on contract and subsequently appointed to a substantive post without interruption to count the contractual service for pension, provided they exercise an option to refund or forego specific monetary benefits
Source reference: p. 7Rule 26(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which stipulates that resignation does not result in forfeiture of past service if the employee takes up another appointment with proper permission
Source reference: p. 3-4the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.D. Jayaprakash & Others v. Union of India (2025 INSC 594), which held that prior contractual service must be counted toward pensionary benefits upon regularization, subject to the conditions of Rule 17
Source reference: p. 8-9Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that the applicant did not merely resign but tendered a "technical resignation" after obtaining a valid NOC to join the Education Department
Source reference: p. 2, 10Consequently, under Rule 26(2), there was no forfeiture of past service or break in continuity
Source reference: p. 3, 10The Tribunal further noted that although the intervening period (2011–2012) was contractual, Rule 17 specifically provides a mechanism to count such service if it is followed by regularization without interruption
Source reference: p. 10The Tribunal highlighted that the respondents' initial rejection was based on an outdated understanding of the rules, as it preceded the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare (DoPPW) Office Memorandum dated 23.10.2024 and the Supreme Court’s 2025 judgment in S.D. Jayaprakash
Source reference: p. 6, 11These recent legal developments clarify that contractual spells are not an absolute bar to OPS benefits if the regulatory conditions for regularization and technical resignation are met
Source reference: p. 11Holding
The Tribunal held that the applicant’s claim required fresh consideration in light of current legal precedents and administrative clarifications
It set aside the impugned rejection order and remitted the matter back to the respondents. The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s claim for inclusion in the Old Pension Scheme by applying Rule 17 and the principles laid down in S.D. Jayaprakash v. Union of India, and to pass a speaking order within two months. The OA was disposed of with no order as to costs
Source reference: p. 11Original Court PDF
G KUMARvsUt Of Pondicherry
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in