NATIONAL TECHNICAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION & ORS versus DIPTI DEODHARE

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 369 · Decided: 17-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
369
   [2023] 2 S.C.R. 369
369
NATIONAL TECHNICAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION
& ORS.
v.
DIPTI DEODHARE
(Civil Appeal No. 413 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 17, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
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 self-
contradictory – 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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
370
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
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.
Case Law Reference
(2009) 4 SCC 700
referred to                Para 4.9
(1989) 4 SCC 99
referred to                Para 4.9
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.413 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.10.2021 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WP No.10867 of 2021.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sanjay Jain, A.S.Gs.. Mukesh Kumar
Maroria, Rajat Nair, Ms. Alka Agarwal,  Ketan Paul, Ashok Panigrahi,
Ms. Shivika Mehra, Manvendra Singh, Advs. for the Appellants.
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Ankit Anandraj Shah, Vivek
Beniwal, Ms. Aditi Gupta,   Avneesh Upadhya, Karan Shankar Mani,
Ashwin Garg, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the National Technical
Research Organization and others, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
371
with the impugned judgment and order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the
High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 10867/2021,
by which the High Court, while allowing the said writ petition preferred
by the respondent herein and setting aside order dated 31.05.2021 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) dismissing O.A. No. 170/1318/
2019, has directed that the order dated 12.02.2019 issued by the
appellant(s) shall be read as an order o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.