Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Purna Nanda Naik vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 8 May, 2009
OPEN COURT CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH : ALLAHABAD ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.467 OF 2008. ALLAHABAD THIS THE 08TH DAY OF May 2009 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. YOG, MEMBER-J HONBLE MRS MANJULIKA GAUTAM, MEMBER-A Purna Nanda Naik, aged about 39 years, son of Shri Bhagirath Naik, R/o P-97-2, Rashtriya Indian Military Centre (RIMC) Campus, Garhi Cantt. Dehradun. . . . . . . . . .Applicant By Advocate : Shri R. Verma Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. 2. The Director General of Military Training (General Staff Branch) Govt of India, New Integrated Army Head Quarters, DHQ, New Delhi 110011. 3. The Deputy Chief of Army Staff (General Staff Branch) Govt. of India, New Integrated Army Head Quarters, DHQ, New Delhi-110011. 4. The Commandant, Rashtriya Indian Military College, Garhi Cantt., Dehradun. 5. Shri Prashant Kumar Sarma, aged about 40 years, S/o Not known, presently working as Section Master, Rashtriya Indian Military College (RIMC), Garhi Cantt., Dehradun. . . . .Respondents By Advocate Shri S.C. Mishra O R D E R
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. YOG, MEMBER-J Heard Shri Rakesh Verma, Advocate on behalf of the applicant and Shri S.N Chatterji, Additional Standing Counsel (Central Government) appearing on behalf of the respondents. Perused the pleadings and documents on record.
2. Applicant/Purna Nanda Naik and Respondent NO. 5/ Prashant Kumar Sarma were serving as Master- (History) and Master (Biology) respectively at Rashtriya Indian Military College, Garhi Cantt., Dehradun. There is no dispute that respondent NO. 5 (who had joined services on 24.03.2000) was senior to the Applicant (who had joined services on 10.8.2000).
3. It appears that respondent NO. 5 was appointed as Principal in Delhi Public School, Rohtak (owned and controlled by a Registered Society) vide appointment letter dated 9.11.2005; he submitted resignation letter dated 13.11.2005 which was accepted w.e.f. 24.12.2005, the applicant joined Delhi Public School, Rohtak but again resigned (from D.P.S. School, Rohtak) w.e.f 16.5.2006; the Applicant submitted application to the concerned Authority of the I.M. College for allowing him to join duties at Rashtriya Indian Military College, Garhi Cantt., Dehradun; his requests was accepted vide letter dated March 10, 2006 (Annexure 3 to the O.A.); on the Authorities accepted withdrawal of resignation without attaching condition to ignore past service and the Applicant was allowed to rejoin- with benefit of past service. It appears that the issue- regarding rejoining with past service was raised someone on the ground that respondent NO. 5 had concealed the facts that he was joining Delhi Public School, Rohtak but the Authority, however, taking into account totality of the circumstances and explanation of the respondent NO. 5, condoned the lapse on the part of respondent NO. 5.
4. On behalf of the applicant, reliance is being placed on Rule 26, which reads:-
(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 not 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 fro the purpose of Rule 37 shall not entail forfeiture of past service under the Government.
5. Applicant has also filed copy of his objection/representation addressed to the Deputy Chief of the Army Staff (IS &T) dated 27.7.2007 (Annexure A-14 to the O.A.) objecting to the decision of the Authorities not to ignore the past service when allowing Respondent No. 5 to rejoin the college and adversely affecting his servcies.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant refers to para 4.20 of the O.A., which reads:-
4.20 That it is further submitted that the whole above exercise of acceptance of withdrawal of resignation from service of respondent no. 5 and further regularization of his intervening period giving benefit of past service was, as a matter of fact, against Rule 26 (2) read with Rule (5) of the same Rule of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
7. A bare reading of Rule 26 would show that contention of the applicant is misconceived and based on misreading of Rule. A careful reading of the Rule will show that Clause 2 and 3 of Rule 26 do not apply to the facts of the instant case inasmuch as Respondent No. 5 was not appointed under Government where services qualified Service. Clause 4 of Rule 26 (quoted above) shows that the Respondents Authority had jurisdiction to allow respondent No. 5 to withdraw his resignation in public interest and without compelling employee to loose- advantage of- i.e. without treating it as break in service.
8. We are of the opinion that matter regarding satisfaction of Rule 4 (iv) of Rule 26 is a matter primarily between Respondent Authority and an employee (in question). The applicant has no locus standi in the matter. Also respondent NO. 5 older in age that the Applicant.
9. In view of the above, we find no merits in this O.A. or any ground to interfere with the decision/order passed by the respondents. O.A. stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
Member (A) Member (J)
Manish/-
??
??
??
??
5