Padam Singh v. State Of Haryana & ORS

    
   


 !"#!$%&%"' '()*+ ,-.%'/0 11! % %"'!) 2!)&(& .  !"# )*''," 0!)& 11!&3"',!' &
4

5641.
 .4. .
 



    





.4. . 1 6

!    

 !   $% $& '(( $' $) '*+  

 

/

  "     & 

0

 $% $& '(( - 2  

! 

-  

 "  

 -

-







!-  

-   --

" ) 4-   -  0 + $) '*+   



-

$' $) '*+



 "

 - -   /* $/ /$)

 "  

3     

,  



-   / $* /$) 6
7)8 ! "- !  % 9

- 3-  

-     - 

--

  - 



!   

0 !

-"

   3- 

! !     "

+ :  "    

!   "

 /$$&

 !

-

"-  

!

-

 

 "   3- "

"

"

( 9

 " "

"-   

"

9

  " "

 $& '*+     ! "

 !

-

  $' /$$&    - *

 



  - -     '

  

 ! 



"

"   -  

    

 3- "  

 0 ! 

 $ "

 "-  "



 " !    " !  ! 3- " 

" 

 " ! !- " ;<=

> "  

" " , 3- " ,   #- 

6 17

-



 !

  $' /$$&

  !

" 

  

"

!

>   !

 !

-



   $' /$$& 

6 17 "

-  

 !  .

 "



!  !  

"

.

   $' /$$& 6 178  -  !

 !

>  !-

 

  $' /$$& 6 178 "   "

! !- / 9

 " 

  "- "

  -  -

  

0 !

-"  

 - 

-  "



7 "4.19 (b):

Resignation of an appointment to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether permanent or temporary, service in which counts in full or in part, is not a resignation of public service. In cases where an interruption in service is inevitable due to the two appointments being at different stations, such interruptions, not exceeding the joining time permissible under the rules on transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government employee on the date of relief or by formal condonation under Rule 4.23 to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to the Government employee.

Note.─ The previous service of a Government employee who is transferred to a temporary appointment is forfeited by his resigning the temporary appointment and taking up another temporary appointment of his own accord."

&

 

 !  !

- " 3  "  -    

7 -"





-

>  "  3     -  

- !  "  -

> -   " "  " -

 -

"

 0 0  0  ) . ,

!



 

= "

 
 

        

 !"# $%  &  !

= "

    -  -" 0  ! --      !     3   -

  - 0-" 7 "17. This Court in     '(

   )*       +,  &  )

 , while considering Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules observed that Rule 26 in clear terms provides that resignation from a service for another post, without due permission will entail forfeiture of service. In this case, although the respondent did seek permission of his employer to apply for the opening in HAL, such permission was not forthcoming. In the meantime, the respondent applied directly, appeared in the selection process availing leave despite denial of permission, and then took up the new assignment. The circumstances here would show that

8 the present case is squarely covered by sub Rule (2) of Rule 26 of CCS Pension Rules. In such circumstances, we are of the 4 considered view that the High Court erred in granting relief to the respondent by ordering that his resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service. The reading of the applicable statutory provision does not warrant an interpretation which will enure to the benefit of an incumbent merely because he applies directly when such application is not supported by due permission of the competent authority."

%  "   

 , -       - "    

!

  + < - 





 "  ( " '()*+

.4. .

harsha  2 3-?  @ 2 



@