ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the proceedings No.DC-WGL/AWE, Dis No.3599, dated 07.05.2016 issued by the Respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 and against the principles of natural justice and of the Constitution of India. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined service in the Unit of District Legal Services Authority, Warangal as Clerk-cum-Typist, vide order DC-WGL/DLSA-BC/Dis.No.575, dated 01.07.2000. While, working as Clerk-cum-Typist, a notification was issued by the learned Principal District Judge calling for application for the post of Personal Assistant in the unit of learned Principal District Judge, Warangal. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner sent his application through proper channel to the Principal District Judge, Warangal and he was selected for the post of Personal Assistant. Thereafter he submitted his resignation as per the Rule 26 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and the said resignation is only a technical formality. 3. Consequent upon joining the post of Personal Assistant in the Unit of learned Principal District Judge, the petitioner was posted to the learned Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Mahabubnagar and entries were made in his Service Register about his previous service and pay protection was extended, recognizing his previous service of 10 years rendered under District Legal Service Authority. While thing stood, petitioner was served the impugned order No.DC-WGL/AW-E, Dis No.3599, dated 07.05.2016 by the respondent withdrawing pay protection and the services rendered, and directed the Disbursing Officer-cum-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal to open a fresh Service Register of the petitioner and to discontinue GPF and other subscriptions. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the instant writ petition has been filed. 4. Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the appointing Authority for both the posts is the Principal District Judge, Warangal. When the application was made through the proper channel followed by a technical resignation, the entire service counts by applying the principle of mobility of employment permitted under Rule 26 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and he further contended that the petitioner’s resignation to join another post of the same department is to be construed as a technical formality and the past service rendered by him cannot be forfeited, and as such, the action of the respondent is impermissible under Rule 26 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the respondent has neither given a fair opportunity of hearing nor issued a show cause notice before passing the said impugned order and the alleged impugned order takes away the petitioner’s 10 years of service and withdraws the pay protection, which is not permissible in law and also in violation of principles of natural justice, hence he prayed this Bench to set-aside the impugned order No.DC-WGL/AW-E, Dis No.3599, dated 07.05.2016 issued by the respondent and allow the writ petition. 6. Sri Bathula Raj Kiran, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent has filed counter affidavit and contended that the petitioner tendered his resignation from his earlier post i.e., Clerk-cum-Typist from the Unit of District Legal Services Authority, subsequent to his appointment as Personal Assistant, vide Proceeding in Dis No.7213, dated 23.07.2009. The petitioner was appointed under direct recruitment to the post of Personal Assistant by the Principal District Judge, Warangal who is the Unit Head of the Warangal District Judiciary and placed petitioner under probation for a period of two years on duty with a continuous period of three years of service from the date of his joining. Therefore, it is crystal clear that nowhere in the appointment order, the petitioner was directed to submit his resignation under Rule 26 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rule nor there is any stipulation in his appointment order with regard to the protection of his earlier service alleged to have been rendered by him. 7. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the Chairman, District Legal Service Legal Authority, Warangal, is a different entity than that of Principal District Judge, Warangal. The District Legal Service Authority, Warnangal, has accepted the said resignation, therefore petitioner is bound to be inducted into the new service with a new service record, instead the petitioner continued his previous Service Register without any authentication or specific order from the Unit Head i.e., learned Principal District Judge, Warangal. However, after due verification, the respondent directed the Drawing and Disbursing Officer-cum-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal to dispense with the earlier Service Register of the petitioner and to open a fresh Service Register, thereby issued impugned proceeding No.DC-WGL/AW-E, Dis No.3599, dated 07.05.2016. 8. Learned Standing counsel for the respondents further drawn attention of this Bench to Rule 29 of the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003, which reads as under: “29. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal to dispense with the earlier Service Register of the petitioner and to open a fresh Service Register, thereby issued impugned proceeding No.DC-WGL/AW-E, Dis No.3599, dated 07.05.2016. 8. Learned Standing counsel for the respondents further drawn attention of this Bench to Rule 29 of the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003, which reads as under: “29. Consequences of resignation:- A member of the service shall, if he resigns his appointment, forfeit not only the service rendered by him in the particular post held by him at the time of resignation but all his previous service under the Government of Andhra Pradesh or any other State Government in India. The reappointment of such person to the service shall be treated in the same way as a first appointment to the service by direct recruitment and all rules governing such appointment shall apply; and on such reappointment shall not be entitled to count any portion of his previous service for any benefit of concession admissible under any rule or order: Provided that nothing contained in this rule shall effect the operation of clause (b) of Article 418 of the Civil Service Regulations.” 9. Learned Standing counsel for the respondents further contended that in light of the said Rules referred to above, the previous service of the petitioner is forfeited, as the petitioner has resigned from the earlier post. Hence the contention of the petitioner for a claim of protection of his earlier service is not justifiable hence prayed his Court to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Heard both sides. Perused the material on record. 11. The point that arose for consideration before this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim previous service and pay protection, rendered under in District Legal Services Authority; and whether the said resignation is only a technical formality as per Rule 26 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 12. Before proceeding further, it is imperative to extract Rule 26 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rule 1980. 26. Forfeiture of service on resignation :- (1) Resignation from a service or post entails forfeiture of past service Provided that 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. 26. Forfeiture of service on resignation :- (1) Resignation from a service or post entails forfeiture of past service Provided that 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. (2) Interruption in service in a case falling under the proviso to sub-rule (1), 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. Note 1 :- Under proviso to Rule 26, resignation of an appointment to take up with proper permission another appointment whether permanent or temporary, service in which counts in full or in part, is not resignation from service. A question has been raised whether in such cases a separate sanction should be issued indicating that resignation has been accepted under the above provisions, in order to enable the audit/administrative officer to regulate the consequential benefits in the matter of pay fixation, carry forward of leave, pension, etc. In cases of the above type the order accepting the resignation should clearly indicate that the employee is resigning to join another appointment with proper permission and that the benefits under proviso to Rule 26 will be admissible to him. The contents of such order should also be noted in the service book of the individual concerned under proper attestation. No separate order sanctioning these benefits in such cases each time would be necessary. The contents of such order should also be noted in the service book of the individual concerned under proper attestation. No separate order sanctioning these benefits in such cases each time would be necessary. Note 2 :- A member of a service or services, who is selected for appointment by direct recruitment to another post, category or class in the same or different service and is appointed to it, shall, as soon as he is appointed to the post, category or class for which he has been selected by direct recruitment, be deemed to have resigned from the service or services of which he is a member prior to his appointment as aforesaid: Provided that nothing in this ruling shall affect the benefits accrued to such member of a service or services in the previous post or posts, except the lien or probationary right, as the case may be, on such post or posts. 13. On a plain reading of Rule 26 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rule 1980, it is clearly evident that resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up with proper permission. If the resignation of an appointment is taken up with proper permission for another appointment, whether permanent or temporary, service in which counts in full or in part is not resignation from service. The resignation should clearly indicate that the employee is resigning to join another appointment with proper permission and that the benefits under proviso to Rule 26 will be admissible to him and the contents of such an order should also be noted in the Service Book of the individual concerned under proper attestation. No separate order sanctioning these benefits in such cases each time would be necessary. 14. In the case on hand, the petitioner has made an application for the post of Personal Assistant through proper channel, which is not disputed by both parties. No separate order sanctioning these benefits in such cases each time would be necessary. 14. In the case on hand, the petitioner has made an application for the post of Personal Assistant through proper channel, which is not disputed by both parties. On perusal of the application, the petitioner has clearly stated that he tendered his resignation from the post of Typist-cum-Clerk under Rule 26 of the A.P. Revised Rules, 1980 and the respondent has forwarded the said application to the Principal District & Session Judge, Warangal stating that the petitioner’s application can be considered to the post of Personal Assistant in the Unit of Principal and Session Judge, Warangal, under Rule 26 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, which clearly means that the petitioner’s application was considered as per Rule 26 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, at the time of recruitment. The petitioner’s resignation comes under Rule 26 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 as such, the said resignation is only a technical resignation to join the new office and the same cannot be treated as discontinued of past services. 15. Admittedly, there is no interval period between the resignation and joining of the service by the petitioner from one department to another department by the petitioner. Further, both the services are under two departments of same Government i.e., State Government. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that Rule 29 of the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003 which the learned standing counsel for respondent relied upon will not apply to the present facts and circumstances of the case. 16. In view of the above findings, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings No.DC-WGL/AWE, Dis No.3599, dated 07.05.2016 issued by the respondent are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and respondent is directed to count the petitioner’s past service and grant pay protection in terms of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules 1980. 18. All miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.