NARINDER LAL MADAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main relief prayed for in this application is as under-'

(2.) A few basic facts need to be highlighted. In 1972 the applicant was a Telegraphist working under Chief Superintendent, CTO, New Delhi. He applied for the job of Lecturer through proper channel with an advance copy to the Principal, Dayal Singh College. He was offered the job of a Lecturer. The application sent through official channel did not reach the college. He resigned on 3.12.1972 and joined the College on 4.12.1972. Since 1976, on the basis of DOPT OM No. 18016/1/75-Estt(C) dated 4.9.1975, he claimed for pro-rata pensionary benefits of past service. On 24.5.1993, DOT woke up to this matter, Annexure-A-5. On 20.11.93, applicant's services were verified and sent to the Principal. Applicant's claim is he had to resign as a Telegraphist because formal relief was not granted to him. He states that this resignation is a technical resignation in the eye of law.

(3.) The case of the respondents is that the applicant resigned of his own accord and did not obtain the new appointment through proper channel. He, therefore, did not become entitled to the benefits of his past service in accordance with the instructions. Para 4.7 of the counter affidavit reads as under-