Service Law – Respondent who was serving as Scientist ‘G’ in Defence Research Development Organization (DRDO) was selected and appointed as Scientist ‘H’ in National Technical Research Organization (NTRO) on probation of one year – She was however, pre-maturely repatriated from NTRO to her parent cadre-DRDO vide order dtd.12.02.19 – Respondent requested NTRO to reinstate her and to treat her application as three months’ notice for VRS – She filed OA before the CAT challenging inter alia NTRO’s order dtd.12.02.19, dismissed – Writ petition filed by respondent, allowed by High Court – On appeal, held: High Court erred in treating the order dtd.12.02.19, as an order of discharge simpliciter – It also erred in ordering that the respondent shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including the benefit of past services rendered in DRDO for computing her terminal benefits directed to be paid by NTRO – Further, High Court committed serious error in observing that she would be entitled to all such benefits as permissible on the premise that she held the post of Scientist ‘H’ and the last pay drawn in that post would be the criteria for settling all her benefits – Directions issued by High Court are selfcontradictory – Once respondent was relieved from NTRO and had reported for duty as Scientist ‘G’ in DRDO, thereafter, she cannot be permitted to claim that she had continued working as Scientist ‘H’ in NTRO – Thus, on and from 13.02.19, the respondent can be said to be the employee of DRDO and in any case, she cannot be treated to be an employee of NTRO – Furthermore, as she was relieved before completion of her probation period, even as per the CCS (Pension) Rules she could not have been given the pensionary benefits as Scientist ‘H’ in NTRO – Impugned judgment set aside, judgment passed by the CAT is restored – CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Service Law – Technical resignation – Held: Tendering a technical resignation from the post the employee was working on his/her appointment in another organization of the Centre/State on probation and to continue the lien till the probation period in the new organization is satisfactorily completed and/or he/she is permanently appointed in the new establishment, is in the interest of the employee so that in case he/she is not made permanent and/or relieved during the probation period, he/she may not have to lose the job and can go back and join the duty in the earlier establishment – In the instant case, on submitting the technical resignation from the post of Scientist-G in DRDO on her appointment on probation as Scientist-H in NTRO, the respondent continued to have the lien on the post of Scientist-G in DRDO. State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. S.N. Tiwari and Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 700; Ramlal Khurana (Dead) By LRs. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (1989) 4 SCC 99 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.