Sarbjeet Singh Kshtariya vs M/o Railways on 16 October 2026

ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)

1. Applicant has filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs: “(a) The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to admit and allow the application.

(b) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the impugned order at Annexure-A/1 dated 27.08.2021 passed by the Respondent Department and grant continuity of service to the applicant by counting his past service. (C) To grant the any other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit in interest of justice.

2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are as under: - 2.1 The applicant states that he was appointed as a Clerk in Dahod Nagarpalika on 01.04.1998 and worked there till October, 2005. Thereafter, he joined the Railway service as a Khalasi/Substitute Khalasi in October, 2005. He had been working in the Railway Department continuously and had an unblemished service record. 2.2 It is the case of the applicant that on 21.12.2005 (Annexure A/4), shortly after joining the Railway service, he submitted a representation requesting that his past service of about seven years rendered in Dahod Nagarpalika be counted for the purpose of continuity of service. According to him, the said representation was not acted upon by the respondents. 2.3 The applicant subsequently submitted another representation dated 05.07.2021, as he was due to retire in September, 2021 and relied upon documents/NOC issued by Dahod Nagarpalika indicating that his resignation from the Nagarpalika was tendered for the purpose of joining Railway service. 2.4 The said representation came to be rejected by the respondents vide order dated 27.08.2021 (Annexure A/1). The applicant contends that while rejecting his request, the respondents relied upon the Office P ANUKUMA

::3 :: OA No.366/2021

Memorandum dated 11.06.2020 (Annexure A/3) issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions relating to mobility of personnel amongst Central/State and Autonomous Bodies under pensionable establishments. According to the applicant, the said OM was not applicable to his claim and the impugned order did not disclose proper reasons for rejection of his claim. 2.5 The applicant has therefore approached this Tribunal contending that the impugned order is arbitrary, unreasoned and has been passed without proper consideration of the documents submitted by him.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant 3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order dated 27.08.2021 is liable to be quashed as it does not properly deal with the applicant’s claim and merely relies upon the OM dated 11.06.2020. 3.2 It was submitted that the applicant had already brought his claim to the notice of the respondents in the year 2005 itself and, therefore, the respondents cannot contend that the claim was raised for the first time after an inordinate delay. 3.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant had produced the relevant documents, including the NOC issued by Dahod Nagarpalika, which according to him established that his resignation from the Nagarpalika was for the purpose of joining Railway service. It was therefore argued that the nature of his resignation ought to have been examined in the light of the instructions relating to technical resignation and counting of past service. 3.4 It was also argued that the OM dated 11.06.2020 relied upon by the respondents concerns mobility of personnel and pension schemes and does not, according to the applicant, prohibit counting of his past service. The applicant specifically pleaded that the impugned order failed to explain how the said OM was applicable to his case. 3.5 Learned counsel further submitted that the case of the applicant was covered by the instructions dated 17.08.2016 concerning technical P ANUKUMA

::4 :: OA No.366/2021

resignation and counting of past service and that the applicant has fulfilled the conditions stipulated therein. 3.6 It was also submitted that an administrative order affecting pensionary/service rights must contain reasons and that the impugned order, being allegedly unreasoned, could not be sustained. It was also argued that the respondents had not identified any specific provision of the Railway Pension Rules which prohibited the applicant from seeking the benefit claimed by him. 3.7 On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the impugned order dated 27.08.2021 be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to count the applicant’s past service rendered in Dahod Nagarpalika for the purpose of continuity of service/pensionary benefits.

4. Submissions of the learned counsel for the Respondents 4.1 Per contra, the respondents have filed their reply and denied the contentions of the applicant. 4.2 At the outset, learned counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding limitation. It was submitted that the applicant joined the Railways in October, 2005 and, according to his own case, had already sought counting of his past service in December, 2005. Therefore, the grievance relating to counting of such past service had arisen long back. The present OA was filed in 2021, at a very belated stage. It was further submitted that no application seeking condonation of delay had been filed by the applicant. 4.3 Learned counsel relied upon Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and submitted that the Tribunal cannot entertain a belated application unless sufficient cause for the delay is shown. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.C.S. Negi v. Union of India & Others, SLP (C) CC No. 3709 of 2011, decided on 07.03.2011, to contend that consideration of limitation is a statutory obligation upon the Tribunal. 4.4 Learned counsel submitted that the applicant had not fulfilled the conditions necessary for counting of past service under the relevant P ANUKUMA

::5 :: OA No.366/2021

instructions. According to the respondents, the OM dated 17.08.2016 permits counting of past service only where the prescribed conditions relating to the nature of appointment, resignation and proper channel are satisfied. 4.5 It was further submitted that the applicant was appointed to the post of Substitute Khalasi on 11.10.2005 against Trained Act Apprentice, under power vested to General Manager and that his service in the Railways was governed by the New Pension Scheme, as specifically mentioned in his appointment letter dated 11.10.2005. Thus, according to the respondents, the applicant could not subsequently claim the benefit of counting his earlier service without satisfying the applicable conditions. 4.6 Learned counsel for the respondents also disputed the applicant’s factual assertions regarding his earlier service. It was submitted that the documents relied upon by the applicant did not clearly establish the exact date of his appointment in Dahod Nagarpalika or the exact date of his resignation. Certain discrepancies were also pointed out in the service sheet and other documents produced by the applicant. 4.7 The respondents further contended that the representation dated 05.07.2021 did not make any reference to the alleged representation dated 21.12.2005. According to the respondents, the applicant had not produced sufficient material to establish that the benefit claimed by him was legally admissible. 4.8 Learned counsel also relied upon Rule 41 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, relating to forfeiture of past service on resignation. It was submitted that although sub-rule (2) provides an exception in cases where resignation is submitted with proper permission for taking up another appointment under the Government in circumstances covered by the Rule, the applicant had not established that his case fulfilled the prescribed conditions. 4.9 It was further submitted that Rule 14 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 specifies certain categories of employment which are not to be treated as qualifying service for pensionary P ANUKUMA

::6 :: OA No.366/2021

benefits. The respondents therefore contended that the applicant’s earlier service could not automatically be treated as qualifying service under the Railway Pension Rules. 4.10 Learned counsel accordingly submitted that the impugned order was in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions and that the applicant had failed to establish any enforceable right to have his past service counted. The respondents therefore prayed for dismissal of the OA.

5. Applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the submissions made in the OA.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6.1 On consideration of the pleadings and submissions, the following issues needs examination: 6.1.1 Issue (i)Whether the present Original Application is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985? 6.1.2 The respondents contended that the cause of action arose in 2005 and the OA is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, relying on D.C.S. Negi v. Union of India & Others (supra). The applicant was appointed in October, 2005 under the National Pension System, and the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 are not applicable to him. The representation dated 05.07.2021 made by the applicant was decided by the impugned order dated 27.08.2021 which rejects it on merits with reference to the OM dated 11.06.2020. The right to pension of the applicant came into existence only in 2020 and therefore the cause of action arose on rejection order dated 27.08.2021. The OA was filed on 17.09.2021, within one year of the impugned order, as required by Section 21(1)(a). Point (i) is answered in the negative. 6.2 Issue (ii) Whether the applicant, who joined Railway service in October, 2005 under the National Pension System, has established that he fulfills the conditions prescribed by OM dated 11.06.2020, to P ANUKUMA

::7 :: OA No.366/2021

have his past service counted for pensionary benefits under the old pension rules? 6.2.1 The applicant seeks counting of service rendered by him in Dahod Nagarpalika from 1998 to 2005, on the basis that his resignation from the Nagarpalika for joining Railway service should be treated as a technical resignation. 6.2.3 The applicant’s contention that the OM dated 11.06.2020 is inapplicable to him cannot be accepted since that OM is the only provision under which his claim can succeed. Under it, the applicant must establish, among other things, (a) that he joined the Railways under the NPS between 01.01.2004 and 28.10.2009

(b) that his previous employer was a pensionable establishment of a Central Government Department, a State Government, or a Central/State Autonomous Body

(c) that he left that employment by technical resignation, that is, having applied through proper channel with the permission of the competent authority and 6.2.4 It is evident from the facts and materials placed on record that

(i) Undisputedly, the condition (a) is satisfied.

(ii) We proceed on the basis that Dahod Nagarpalika, a municipal body of the State of Gujarat, falls within the description of a State establishment for the purposes of the OM.

(iii) Condition (c), whether the applicant left the Nagarpalika by technical resignation is the real issue under the OM dated 17.08.2016, a resignation is treated as technical where the employee applied for the new post through proper channel, with the permission of his employer, and resigned on selection, whether or not the word “technical” was used. The material question is therefore not the label attached to the resignation, but whether the applicant applied for the Railway post through proper channel. The documents on record do not prove this. P ANUKUMA

::8 :: OA No.366/2021

6.2.5 We have considered the NOC issued by Dahod Nagarpalika, which is the principal document relied upon by the applicant. It indicates that the applicant resigned in order to join Railway service. That establishes the reason for the resignation; it does not establish that the applicant’s application for the Railway post was routed through proper channel with the prior permission of the Nagarpalika. The NOC, therefore, does not prove a technical resignation. Condition (C) is not proved. 6.2.6 Technical resignation is a condition common to both the OM dated 17.08.2016 and the OM dated 11.06.2020 and in absence of proof of such resignation, the applicant’s past service in Dahod Nagarpalika cannot be counted for pensionary benefits. In view of this, we deem it unnecessary to decide whether representation dated 21.12.2005 was in fact made. Point 6.2 Issue (ii) is answered in the negative. 6.2.7 In view of this, the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the applicant. We have examined the impugned order dated 27.08.2021 which rejects the applicant’s claim with reference to the OM dated 11.06.2020.

7. The applicant’s grievance is that the order does not explain in detail why the OM applies to him. Even if the order is regarded as brief, the ordinary consequence of inadequate reasons would be a remand for fresh consideration, not a direction to grant the benefit. A remand would serve no purpose here, since the applicant has not proved the technical resignation in his case which is a condition precedent under the OM. Point

8. In view of the above mentioned facts:

(i) the OA is within limitation, the applicant’s claim being founded on the OM dated 11.06.2020;

(ii) the applicant, an NPS entrant, can have his Nagarpalika service counted only under that OM, and he has not proved by the documents on record that he left the Nagarpalika by technical resignation through proper channel; and P ANUKUMA

::9 :: OA No.366/2021

(iii) the impugned order, which rests on that OM, does not call for interference.

9. In view of the forgoing discussion we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.08.2021.

10. OA is dismissed.

11. MA pending, if any, also stands disposed of.

12. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Sanjiv Kumar)

(Jayesh V Bhairavia)

Member (A)

Member (J)

//Anu// P ANUKUMA