Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 320 (RAJ)

Ramesh Kumar Gupta v. Union of India

2021-02-09

MANOJ KUMAR VYAS, SABINA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Vyas, J. 1. Petitioner has filed the petition challenging order dated 08.10.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby, original application filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 02.05.2017 was dismissed. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. 3. Case of the petitioner in brief, as per the original application, was that the petitioner had joined service on 12.05.1978 as Auditor with the Central Government. Thereafter, in the year 1988, petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Professor in University of Rajasthan and was offered appointment vide order dated 30.11.1988. Petitioner submitted a representation that he be relieved from service on 01.12.1988 and the said request was accepted and the petitioner was relieved vide order dated 02.12.1988. Thereafter, the petitioner worked with the University of Rajasthan and his lien was terminated with effect from 02.12.1991. Petitioner submitted a representation on 16.01.2017 for release of pension and other benefits with regard to the services rendered by him in Central Government Audit and Accounts Department. Petitioner had raised the claim with regard to the service period up to 02.12.1988 and not with regard to the services rendered by him at University of Rajasthan commencing from 03.12.1988. 4. Respondents, in their reply, submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Auditor on 12.05.1978 and was promoted as Senior Auditor on 01.03.1984 and was, thereafter, promoted as Section Officer on 05.06.1987. Later, the petitioner was selected as Assistant Professor in University of Rajasthan and was relieved from the office of respondents with effect from 02.12.1988. Lien of the petitioner was extended up to 01.12.1991, but petitioner failed to join the parent office, nor tendered his resignation before the expiry of the said period. Hence, his lien was terminated vide office order dated 16.09.1992. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 26(2) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and Rule 26 of the Rules reads as under: "26. Forfeiture of Service on resignation (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. Forfeiture of Service on resignation (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 to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies. (3) Interruption in service in a case falling under sub-rule (2), due to the two appointments being at different stations, not exceeding the joining time permissible under the rules of transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government servant on the date of relief or by formal condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to him. (4) The Appointing Authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest on the following conditions, namely:- (i) that the resignation was tendered by the Government servant for some compelling reasons which did not involve any reflection on his integrity, efficiency or conduct and the request for withdrawal of the resignation has been made as a result of a material change in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender the resignation; (ii) that during the period intervening between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date from which the request for withdrawal was made, the conduct of the person concerned was in no way improper; (iii) that the period of absence from duty between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed to resume duty as a result of permission to withdraw the resignation is not more than ninety days; (iv) that the post, which was vacated by the Government servant on the acceptance of his resignation or any other comparable post, is available. (5) Request for withdrawal of a resignation shall not be accepted by the Appointing Authority where a Government servant resigns his service or post with a view to taking up an appointment in or under a private commercial company or in or under a corporation or company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government or in or under a body controlled or financed by the Government. (6) When an order is passed by the Appointing Authority allowing a person to withdraw his resignation and to resume duty, the order shall be deemed to include the condonation of interruption in service but the period of interruption shall not count as qualifying service. (7) A resignation submitted for the purpose of Rule 37 shall not entail forfeiture of past service under the Government." Thus, as per the above rule, resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service where such service qualifies in another appointment under the Government. In the present case, petitioner had worked with the Central Government for more than ten years and thereafter, he took up employment with the University of Rajasthan in the year 1988. Petitioner retired from the University of Rajasthan on 01.02.2017 and for the first time, he moved a representation for sanction of pension on 16.01.2017. So far as Rule 26(2) of the Rules is concerned, the resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if the person takes up another appointment under the Government where the previous services qualifies. Although, in the present case, petitioner had worked with the Central Government, but thereafter, he had taken a job in University of Rajasthan, which is an autonomous body. Petitioner had not approached the University of Rajasthan for release of pension by counting his previous services with the Union of India, but had sought pension from his first employer, i.e., Union of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any such provision which would entitle the petitioner to the benefit of pension vis-à-vis service rendered by him with Union of India. After 02.12.1991, there was no relationship of employer and employee between Union of India and the petitioner. In case, petitioner was eligible for pension, he should have sought retirement from Union of India and should not have allowed his lien to be terminated. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Tribunal had, thus, rightly dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed.