Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
D. Srihari vs The Senior Superintendent Of Post ... on 7 August, 2007
ORDER Bharati Ray, Member (J)
1. Heard Mr. M. Venkanna, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The applicant was selected as Postal Assistant (PA) in Nizamabad Division during the second half year of 1991 recruitment. He was appointed as PA on 01.05.1993. The applicant applied for the recruitment examination of Junior Accountants that was conducted by Staff Selection Commission against the open notification. The applicant was selected for the said post of Junior Accountant (Postal), Hyderabad. After he got selected as Junior Accountant in the office of Director of Accounts (Postal), he submitted his resignation requesting to accept the same as a technical formality as per Government of India decision No. 1 under Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules. But the same was not accepted as the applicant has sent the application directly to Staff Selection Commission but not through proper channel i.e. the appointing authority. The applicant accordingly submitted a letter dated 20.11.1998 requesting to accept the resignation as unconditional. The same was accepted vide SSPOs, Nizamabad Memo No. B2-1231 dated 20.11.1998. The applicant was relieved in Nizamabad Division and joined in the office of the 2nd respondent as Junior Accountant on 26.11.1998. The applicant has assumed charge as Sub Divisional Inspector (Postal), Armoor Sub Division on 17.07.2002. The applicant submitted a representation dated 10.06.2005 addressed to 2nd respondent requesting to consider his past service i.e. the service rendered by him as Postal Assistant in Nizamabad Division. The Regional Office vide letter No. PMG(H)/ST/11-1/NZB dated 23.01.2006 instructed the 1st respondent to inform the contents of R.O. Vide letter dated 19.01.2001 to the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant was informed the contents of the R.O. letter dated 19.01.2001 vide 1st respondent's letter dated 25.01.2006, which is enclosed at page-34 to the OA. By the said letter the applicant was informed that his request for counting his past service as P.A., Nizamabad Division cannot be acceeded to as he has sent his application to SSC directly and not through appointing authority i.e. SSPOs, Nizamabad vide GOI decision No. 1 under Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. Questioning the said order dated 25.01.2006 the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking for a direction to declare the said order as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and to declare the action of the respondents as infringing provisions of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of past service of about 5 = years as Postal Assistant for all consequential benefits namely pay, seniority, pension and other opportunant benefits.
3. The respondents have contested the application by filing a counter reply. The learned Counsel for the respondents has produced the rule mentioned above. However, he submitted that the said rule is also enclosed at page-6 to the counter reply.
4. The contention of the applicant that while he was working as Junior Accountant in 2nd respondent's organisation, applied for IPO examination and appointed in the said post has not been denied by the respondents. It is the case of the respondents that the applicant has not furnished the fact that while applying for examination of IPO, did not disclose the fact about the unconditional resignation to the post of PA in Nizamabad division tendered by him. Learned Counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to GID No. 1 under Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rule, 1972. (Which is enclosed as Annexure R-1). The relevant part of which is extracted below:
(1) When resignation a technical formality and when it subsists.
A Government servant intending to apply for a post of posts outside his parent office/department under the Government of India should have his application forwarded through the competent authority under whom he was serving at the time of applying for the post. Such an authority should either forward the application or withhold it according as the exigencies of public service may indicate but it should not forward the application conditionally, for example, that in the event of the applicant coming out successful, he will be required to resign his post before taking up the new one. Once the application has been forwarded unconditionally and the person concerned is offered the post applied for, he should be relieved of his duties to join the new post as a matter of course and the question of his resigning the post held by him in such circumstances should not arise. Accordingly, the amended article is intended to cover the cases where even though the applications were forwarded by the competent authority, the applicant had been asked for one reason or the other to resign his post before taking up the new one. The above position holds good whether the Government servant held the post in permanent or temporary capacity, before resigning the post.
Situations may arise where the application of a Government servant was not forwarded and the Government servant resigned his appointment of his own volition with a view to his taking up the new post or where it was not possible to forward his application in the public interest but the Government servant had volunteered to resign his post or where the conditions of service in an office demand as a matter of policy that the Government servant should resign his post in the event of his taking up another post outside. In all such cases, it has been held that resignation of public service will subsist and entail forfeiture of past service.
It has been decided that in cases where Government servants apply for posts in the same or other departments through proper channel and on selection, they are asked to resign the previous posts for administrative reasons, the benefit of past service may, if otherwise admissible under rules, be given for purposes of fixation of pay in the new post treating the resignation as a 'technical formality'. The pay in such cases may be fixed under FR 27.
5. It is not disputed that the applicant submitted his application directly to the SSC and he submitted his unconditional resignation and joined as PA afresh. Therefore, as per the above rule he is not entitled to get the benefit of past service and the same has been communicated to the applicant through the impugned letter dated 25.01.2006. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that there is nothing wrong on the part of the respondents in rejecting the request of the respondents for counting his past service as PA, Nizamabad division for any purpose in terms of GOI decision under Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
6. The applicant filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents where he has admittedly stated that he had tendered technical resignation letter, which was not accepted as the same has been taken by the first respondent as conditional one and therefore he tendered another resignation letter without stipulating any condition to avoid the inconvenience of not being relieved to join the new assignment as Junior Accountant, O/o DA(D), Hyderabad which is a separate wing of the same department. The applicant has not stated anything in the rejoinder to establish that the action of the respondents is unjustified. Infact the respondents have acted in terms of the rule mentioned in the impugned order. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the respondents communicated to the applicant through the impugned order dated 25.01.2006.
7. That being the position, I do not find any merit in this application and the applicant is not entitled to get the relief prayed for. The OA is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.