Resignation must be for taking up another government position with permission to avoid forfeiture of past service under CCS (Pension) Rules.

JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This O.P.(CAT) is filed by the applicant in O.A.No.504 of

2023, challenging the order dated 04.02.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, dismissing the O.A.

2. The facts in brief, as are necessary for the disposal of this Original Petition, are as follows:

The petitioner/applicant entered into the service of the first respondent as Junior Laboratory Assistant on 01.04.1969, under the 2^nd respondent. In the year 1972, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant and in the year 1979 was promoted as Junior Technical Assistant. After 13 years of unblemished service, the petitioner resigned from service on 27.02.1982. The purpose of resignation was to take up a new employment with the 5^th respondent Airport Authority of India, which is a statutory body under the first respondent Union of India. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service on 29.2.2024 as Manager Engg.(Electrical). Since, there is no pension scheme for the employees of Airports Authority of India, the petitioner, who is eligible for pension for his continuous service with the 2^nd respondent from 01.04.1969 to 27.02.1982, made a request seeking pension. When there was no response, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.191/2021. The Tribunal directed the respondents to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner within a period of three months. Thereafter, the 1^st and the 2^nd respondents, after considering the representation, issued Annexurae A4 (Ext.R2(c) order) dated 13.12.2021, declining the claim of the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal again, by filing O.A.No.504/2023.

3. The Tribunal, after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, dismissed the O.A.

4. Heard Adv.Dipu.R, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on admission.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and the O.A. was dismissed by interpreting the provisions in a technical and narrow manner. He argued that the petitioner has resigned from the service of the 2^nd respondent, only for the purpose of joining the 5^th respondent, a statutory body under the 1^st respondent. He submitted that the petitioner, on the next day of the resignation itself, joined the 5th respondent and continued in service. Hence, according to the learned counsel, a purposive interpretation has to be given to Rule 26 (1) and (2) of CSS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the Original Application ought to have been allowed by the Tribunal.

6. On an anxious consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the materials on record, we are of the view that there is no merit in the submissions. A perusal of the resignation letter [Annexure R2(a)], which is extracted in the impugned order, goes to show that the petitioner has resigned from the service of the 2^nd respondent due to unavoidable domestic problems in his family and since, his presence is required in his native place. There is not even a whisper in the resignation letter that the purpose of resignation is for joining the 5^th respondent. The resignation letter is also not routed through proper channel and there is no request seeking permission to take up another appointment. 7. Rule 26(1) and (2) of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 reads as follows:

“(1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the Appointing Authority, entails forfeiture of past service.

(2). A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted t