A resignation is classified as a 'technical resignation' if an employee applies via the proper channel for a post in another department; the benefit of past service remains admissible regardless of whether the word 'technical' was explicitly mentioned in the official resignation, provided the substantive eligibility conditions are fulfilled.

O R D E R (ORAL)

By Hon’ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)

In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 24.6.2025 and order dated 12.9.2023 declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, arbitrary and against the rules and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to treat the resignation of the applicant from the post of Executive Secretary from the office of the respondents No.2 as technical resignation for all the purpose with all the consequential benefits including payment of leave encashment with interest from due date.

(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation.”

Initially, Mr. Verma, learned counsel appeared and accepted notice on behalf of both the respondents. Later on, Mr. Verma, learned counsel stated to remain counsel only for respondent no. 1 and in opposition to the claim of the applicant, a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2. Today Mr. Verma, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 has submitted that he has been instructed that as the respondent no. 2 is an autonomous organization, the matter is to be defended on behalf of both respondents on the basis of reply filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 and no separate reply has to be filed on behalf of respondent no. 1.

We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance we have also perused the pleadings available on record. It is undisputed that the applicant was initially appointed under the respondent no. 2 as Personal Assistant and such post was subsequently re-designated as Executive Secretary w.e.f. 30.03.1994 and the respondent no. 2 had further been merged with the respondents’ organization, i.e., NIRDPR w.e.f. 01.05.2000. An advertisement was issued by respondent no. 1 to fill up the post of Private Secretary on deputation. The applicant finding himself to be eligible and eager for the said advertised post, applied through proper channel (Annexure A-8) as evident from the communication dated 22.08.2019 (Annexure R-2) of respondent no. 2. On being selected for the said post, the respondent no. 1 requested the respondent no. 2 to relieve the applicant vide their communication dated 22.01.2021 (Annexure A-7). The applicant submitted a letter dated 25.09.2020 requesting the respondent no. 2 to relieve him in view of the offer of appointment issued by respondent no. 1 and referred to hereinabove.

In response to such letter of the applicant, respondent no. 2 is stated to have issued a note dated 25.11.2020, wherein it is stated that his request was duly examined, however, his request for relieving cannot be considered. Applicant again submitted another application dated 02.02.2021 for being relieved and in response thereto, the respondent no. 2 has issued a communication dated 23.02.2021 (Annexure A-6), wherein it is stated that in view of the DoP&T OM dated 17.08.2016, his request for technical resignation is not applicable and the applicant was required to submit the resignation (not technical resignation) and undertaking that he will not claim any lien in respondent no. 2 in future. When the applicant submitted his claim for counting his past service under the respondent no. 2, for all the admissible benefits and no response was received, the applicant submitted an application under RTI Act and the impugned communication dated 24.06.2025 was received from the office of the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has filed the present O.A.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the applicant had applied through proper channel, the respondent no. 2 has not only forwarded his application but has also given vigilance clearance, etc., in terms of the provisions of the OM dated 17.08.2016, referr