Technical Resignation allows previous temporary service to count towards pension benefits if the resignation is accepted by conduct, affirming the principle of continuity in service.

JUDGMENT :

DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.

1. The Union Government through the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and its entities are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 31.01.2025, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack, having favoured sole OP’s OA No. 260/00692 of 2022, has set at naught the order dated 26.04.2019 and has given a consequent direction inter alia for reckoning his service during the period between 04.01.1988 & 15.03.2007 in NIMR under IDVC Project as qualifying service for the purpose of terminal benefits. A period of sixty days is prescribed for compliance.

2. Learned DSGI Mr. P.K. Parhi appearing for the Petitioners urged the following grounds seeking invalidation of the impugned order:

(i) Case of the OP is not one of Technical Resignation and therefore, the service rendered in NIMR under IDVC Project prior to OP’s regular appointment to the post in question cannot be counted for the purpose of pension & other terminal benefits.

(ii) Though the letter of Technical Resignation was submitted by the OP, the same has not been accepted by the competent authority and therefore, there was no Technical Resignation for reckoning his previous service for the purpose of terminal benefits, which aspect has been lost sight of by the Tribunal.

(iii) The Tribunal grossly erred in not following the decision of Madras High Court in P. Philip Samuel v. The Director, Vector Control Research Centre, IMCR, 2023:MHC:5412 and thus there is error apparent on the face of record, warranting interference of this Court for setting the same at naught.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the OP vehemently opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order of the Tribunal and the reasons on which it has been founded. Essentially, he made the following submissions seeking dismissal of the petition:

(i) OP has put in about 19 years of service in the Project in question as a temporary employee in the post in question to which he has been appointed later and was drawing the emoluments admissible to the post unlike in Philip Samuel supra and therefore, the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the case of OP.

(ii) The case of OP is one of Technical Resignation, inasmuch as the letter of Technical Resignation was tendered on 15.03.2007 afternoon and on its tacit acceptance, OP had reported for duty in the post on regular basis on the following day, i.e., 16.03.2007 forenoon. It is under the same direction in the same office and to the same post, with the same table & chair. Therefore, the disconnect sought to be made out between the previous service and the subsequent regular service is fictional and therefore, liable to be ignored.

(iii) Rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, having expansive text, speaks of qualifying service which would commence from the date a Government employee takes charge of the post, to which he is first appointed substantively, on official basis or on temporary basis with no interruption. That being the position, the impugned order of the Tribunal perfectly accords with law and does not call for interference.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

4.1. OP on being selected pursuant to an open advertisement came to be appointed on 04.01.1988 as a Technical Officer in the IDVC Project, Malaria Research Centre, NIMR on temporary basis. His pay scale was Rs.2000-3200/-. Subsequently, on 31.12.1991, he was appointed as Research Scientist in the same Project in the pay scale of Rs.2000-4000/-. Subsequently, on 30.06.1994, he was appointed as Senior Research Scientist in the pay s