The Calcutta High Court has ordered the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension to reassess an application filed by a lower grade clerk seeking coverage under the Old Pension Scheme, holding that disclosure requirements cannot be enforced strictly if they were not explicitly outlined in the initial appointment terms.
In an order issued on September 7, a division bench comprising Justice Amrita Sinha and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury instructed the central authorities to revisit the employee’s request without citing the lack of a “technical resignation” as a barrier. The bench directed the ministry to issue a reasoned decision on the matter within six weeks.
Rejection of Constrictive Administrative Approach
The high court observed that the administrative department had adopted a very strict and constrictive approach toward the employee. The bench pointed out that job seekers routinely apply for multiple vacancies simultaneously to secure employment amid widespread recruitment uncertainties, and there is no legal prohibition against doing so.
The court highlighted that employers bear the responsibility of formally presenting all service conditions and disclosure requirements to new recruits at the time of appointment. Because the authorities failed to demonstrate that the employee’s original appointment terms mandated the disclosure of pending job applications, the judges ruled that any such disclosure rules could only be treated as directory rather than mandatory.
Timeline of Employment and Policy Notifications
The petitioner initially applied for a peon vacancy announced in May 2002. While that selection process remained underway, he applied in 2005 for a separate lower grade clerk opening. He was eventually recruited as a peon and reported for duty on September 15, 2006.
The results for the clerk post were announced in 2007. Following his selection, the employee submitted his resignation from the post of peon, expressly stating in his resignation letter that he was leaving to take up the newly secured clerk position. He formally assumed duties as a lower grade clerk on March 27, 2007, under terms assigning him to the New Pension Scheme of 2004.
The issue resurfaced after the Department of Personnel and Training issued an official communication on March 3, 2023, granting eligible central government civil employees a one-time opportunity to transition to the Old Pension Scheme. Relying on this provision, the clerk submitted his transfer request on August 8, 2023.
Legal Challenge and Arguments
Departmental authorities denied the employee’s request on grounds that he had resigned directly from his previous post rather than tendering a technical resignation, while also failing to disclose his pending clerk application upon joining as a peon. The worker challenged this administrative denial before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his application on September 18, 2025.
During proceedings before the high court, counsel for the petitioner, advocates Gopala Binnu Kumar and Samson Stephen, argued that the resignation ought to be treated as a technical resignation because the employee had explicitly declared his reasons and future post when resigning. They contended that this disclosure entitled him to benefit from the older pension framework.
In response, advocate Rakesh Kumar, representing the government authorities, maintained that the employee had an obligation to disclose his pending clerk application at the time he joined as a peon, and that his failure to do so legally bound him to the New Pension Scheme.
The bench rejected the government’s position, noting that officials had accepted the employee’s resignation in 2007 without voicing any objection to the reasons stated. With no proof that prior disclosure had been made a binding condition of his initial appointment, the court ruled that his entitlement to pension consideration could not be denied on those grounds.
