Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12409

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ramesh Singh Thakur, Member (J)
Komalpreet Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A.No. 060/192/2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jaswinder Singh
For the Respondents: Sanjay Goyal, Abhinav Chodha

A permanent government servant resigning via a technical resignation through the proper channel retains their lien on their previous post by default, and pay protection cannot be denied solely due to the absence of an explicit request to retain the lien.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 26 - Technical Resignation - Pay Protection - An employee who joins another department through proper channel via a technical resignation retains a lien on their previous permanent post by right - It is not correct to deny a government servant pay protection on the plea that they did not explicitly request the retention of lien during the resignation process - Where rules provide for the protection of pay and past service benefits upon a technical resignation, the omission of the word 'technical' or the absence of a specific retention request does not terminate the underlying statutory or service-embedded lien. (Paras 15, 16, 17)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a Nuclear Medicine Physicist at a medical college under a State University, resigned to accept a similar position at a central institute, having applied through the proper channel. Upon joining the new position, pay protection was denied by the central institute on the ground that the applicant did not formally request the retention of her lien upon resignation from the previous parent organization.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held that a technical resignation is an exception to the forfeiture of past service. The right to retain a lien is an inherent right of a permanent employee and cannot be terminated or denied due to the absence of a specific application for lien retention by the employee at the time of resignation.

Issues: Whether an employee who resigns through the proper channel for a new appointment is required to explicitly request the retention of lien to qualify for pay protection, and whether the absence of such a request justifies the denial of pay protection benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: A technical resignation allows an employee to carry over past service and pay benefits. A lien is acquired as a right upon confirmation in a permanent post and cannot be terminated even with the employee's consent if it leaves them without a lien on a permanent post. Therefore, pay protection is a substantive right that persists following a technical resignation regardless of administrative oversight regarding the formal request to retain the lien.

Result: Original Application allowed; impugned orders set aside.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual basis of the pay protection dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. contentions of parties regarding lien retention and dopt guidelines. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. applicability of technical resignation and lien rules in administrative law. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. lien retention is an inherent right following technical resignation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)

O R D E R

Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):

1. The instant case has been entrusted to this Bench by the Hon’ble Chairman under Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for Third Member Reference on account of difference of opinion in order of the Division Bench of this Tribunal.

2. The applicant has sought the following reliefs:

a) To declare that the applicant is entitled for the benefit of Pay Protection as per FR-22-B(1);

b) To quash & set aside the impugned Orders dated 18.11.2021(ANNEXUREA-18); dated 15.12.2021 (ANNEXURE A- 20 and Order dated 10.2.2022 (ANNEXUREA-22);

c) To direct respondent no. 3 to make necessary entries in records regarding marking of lien of the applicant

d) To direct respondent no. 2 to grant Pay Protection to the applicant w.e.f. 10.7.2017, the day the applicant joined in PGIMER, Chandigarh, by re-fixing the Basic Pay of the applicant as Rs.59500/- and pay arrears of pay, allowances and consequential benefits.

3. Facts of the case in brief are as follows. The applicant joined Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, a constituent college of Baba Farid University of Medical Sciences [BFUHS] Faridkot, as Nuclear Medicine Physicist on 13.08.2014. While working as aforesaid, she applied for the post of Nuclear Medicine Physicist in PGIMER Chandigarh through proper channel on 29.04.2016 (Annexure A-2). The BFUHS, Faridkot issued NOC to the applicant dated 17.5.2016 to apply for the post of Nuclear Medicine Physicist in PGIMER Chandigarh (Annexure A-3). She submitted Three Months Notice dated 10.06.2017 to BFUHS, Faridkot for resigning from the post held there (Annexure A-4). The Vice Chancellor BFUHS, Faridkot accepted the resignation tendered by the applicant. She was permitted to be relieved from Guru Gobind Singh Medical College & Hospital/BFUHS on 06.07.2017 (Annexure A-7). She joined the PGIMER, Chandigarh as Nuclear Medicine Physicist w.e.f. 10.07.2017. Her pay was fixed @ Rs.56100/- i.e. at the minimum of the Pay Band of Rs.15600-39100 + G.P. Rs.5400/-. The grievance of the applicant is that she earned two increments while working with BFUHS and was getting the higher basic pay of Rs.16880/-, but the PGIMER, Chandigarh while fixing her pay did not grant her the benefit of pay protection.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant represented to the Director PGIMER Chandigarh for Pay Protection vide letter dated 28.7.2017 (Annexure A-11), followed by reminders dated 10.1.2018, 10.9.2020 and 02.08.2021 (Annexures A-12 to A-15). Pursuant thereto, the respondents no. 2 wrote to respondent no. 3 i.e. BFUHS, Faridkot vide letter dated 09.09.2021 (Annexure A-15) with reference to the applications of the applicant. The respondent no. 3 responded vide letter dated 18.11.2021 (Annexure A-18) stating that lien of the applicant was not retained as she did not give any option for retention of lien while submitting her technical resignation to them. Consequently, the Administrative Officer, PGIMER, Chandigarh vide letter dated 15.12.2021 (Annexure A-20) rejected the request of the applicant for pay protection in the absence of retention of lien by her previous employer. The applicant again represented to the PGIMER Chandigarh vide application dated 05.01.2022 (Annexure A-21), which was rejected vide letter dated 10.02.2022(Annexure A-22) on the lines of earlier letter dated 15.12.2021.

5. The contention of the applicant is that she is fully eligible for the benefit of pay protection, which she was getting from her previous employer in terms of instructions and guidelines issu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12409

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALRamesh Singh Thakur, Member (J)Komalpreet Kaur – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentO.A.No. 060/192/2022

A permanent government servant resigning via a technical resignation through the proper channel retains their lien on their previous post by default, and pay protection cannot be denied solely due to the absence of an explicit request to retain the lien.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ramesh Singh Thakur, Member (J)
Komalpreet Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A.No. 060/192/2022