SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22746

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.Krishna Kumar, J
Nirmal Raju – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 638 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Subramanya Bhat.M
For the Respondents: G.Ramesh Naik, P.Karunakar, T.P.Rajendra Kumar Sungay

A technical resignation tendered with proper permission to take up another appointment does not constitute a break in service. Past service must be protected for pensionary benefits, and rules governing permanent absorption are inapplicable to cases of direct recruitment following such resignation.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Civil Services Rules - Rule 252(b) - Technical resignation to take up another appointment - Petitioner joined government service before the cut-off date - Resignation tendered for the purpose of joining another institution through proper channel - Whether such resignation constitutes a break in service or is considered a resignation from public service. (Paras 3, 5, 8)

(B) Rule 235A of Karnataka Civil Services Rules - Applicability - Rule applies only to permanent transfer or absorption in specified organizations - It is not applicable to cases of direct recruitment after tendering technical resignation. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having joined service in 1987, tendered a technical resignation under the state civil service rules to accept a new appointment in a different institution through proper channels. The petitioner sought the transfer of pensionary benefits and inclusion under the old pension scheme. The respondent authorities rejected the claim, citing the inapplicability of the technical resignation rule to universities and invoking an incorrect rule regarding permanent absorption.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the resignation, tendered with proper permission to take up another appointment, is not a resignation from public service under the governing rules. The authority’s reliance on the provision for permanent absorption was found to be erroneous, as the petitioner’s entry into the new institution was by way of open selection and direct recruitment, not a transfer or absorption.

Issues: Whether the denial of pensionary benefits under the old pension scheme on the premise that the resignation was a break in service was legally sustainable, and whether the respondent authority correctly applied the rule regarding permanent absorption.

Ratio Decidendi: A technical resignation tendered through proper channels to pursue another appointment does not sever the continuity of service for pensionary purposes. Provisions governing the permanent absorption of government servants in autonomous bodies do not apply to direct recruitment following a technical resignation.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. establishing the factual timeline of employment, resignation, and representation. (Para 3 , 4)
2. parties' contentions regarding old pension scheme applicability. (Para 5 , 6)
3. analysis of rule 235a and its inapplicability to technical resignations. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. applying precedent regarding rule 252(b) for pension continuity. (Para 10 , 11)
5. final order quashing impugned communications and mandating administrative processing. (Para 12)

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO COMMUNICATION BEARING NO. 35844.MU/REG/EST (E-7)/60/2022 DATED 25.5.23 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-N ISSUED BY THE R1.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“(a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, quashing

i) Communication bearing No.35844: MU/REG/EST(E 7)/60/2022 dated 25.05.2023 produced at ANNEXURE N issued by the 1st Respondent.

ii) Communication bearing No.ET 3/134/2008-09 dated 09.03.2023 produced at Annexure-P passed by the 2nd respondent and

iii) Communication bearing No. ED 45 UMV 2020 issued by the Government of Karnataka (Respondent No.3) dated 11.02.2022 produced at Annexure-Q, to meet the ends of justice.

(b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 to transfer the pension and service gratuity of the Petitioner which are due to him for having worked for 26 years in the 4th Respondent to the 3rd Respondent, consequent upon quashing the above orders, to meet the ends of justice.

(c) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, including the costs of this litigation, to meet the ends of justice.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner joined as a lecturer in History in Mysore University on 08.10.1987. On 04.04.1996, the petitioner was granted the benefit of placement as Senior Scale Lecturer. After obtaining necessary permission from the Mysore University, the petitioner tendered technical resignation under Rule 252 (b) of the KCSR for the purpose of being appointed as a Professor in respondent No.3 – Mangalore University by way of direct recruitment. In pursuance of the aforesaid technical resignation submitted by him, the petitioner was relieved from respondent No.4 and was appointed as a Professor in the respondent No.3 – Mangalore University. This was confirmed by the proceedings of respondent No.4 dated 06.01.2014 at Annexure- E. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner reported to duty in respondent No.3 as per direction issued to him to report for duty at Annexure-F.

4. It is contended that since the petitioner has taken up employment with the respondent No.3 after submitting his application through proper channel and after getting duly relieved in accordance with law, the pension and other terminal benefits to which he is entitled to ought to have been transferred by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3, which has not been done so far by respondent No.4. The petitioner retired from service and attained the age of superannuation as Professor in respondent No.3 – Mangalore University on 31.05.2024 after completing 10 years 6 months of service. The petitioner rendered 26 years 3 months service with respondent No.4. In pursuance of the same, petitioner submitted representations dated 27.07.2020, 18.07.2022, 20.04.2023 and 06.05.2023 to respondent Nos.3 and 4 at Annexures- L, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, M and M1. The representations submitted by petitioner was rejected by a reply dated 25.05.2023 passed by respondent No.3 at Annexure-N, communication dated 09.0

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top