om:83-cl-2025-Jul — Officials who resign or obtain voluntary retirement from State Government service and take up fresh appointment in Central Government are not entitled to Transfer Travelling Allowance (TTA) which is applicable only in the case of Technical resignation. Supple mentary Rules applicable to Central Government employees do not support reimbursement for transfers from State Government posts

FRSR

Officials who resign or obtain voluntary retirement from State Government service and take up fresh appointment in Central Government are not entitled to Transfer Travelling Allowance (TTA) which is applicable only in the case of Technical resignation. Supple mentary Rules applicable to Central Government employees do not support reimbursement for transfers from State Government posts — This chunk discusses a legal case (O.A. No. 724 of 2019) regarding an applicant who was previously serving as an Additional District Judge in Orissa Judiciary but later joined the Customs, Excise and... — Facts:The Applicant, prior to his appointment to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai as Judicial Member, was serving as an Additional District Judge (ADJ) in the Orissa Judiciary under the Orissa Superior Judicial Services. Upon selection and appointment as Member (Judicial) in CESTAT, he submitted his resignation from the post of ADJ. The resignation was made under Rule 41(1)
(a) of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, thereby opting for a retiring pension.
The Applicant, vide Letter, dated 4-6-2018, sought an advance towards Transfer Travelling Allowance (TTA) and was sanctioned &#X20B9; 1,25,000. Subsequently, he submitted actual TTA bills amounting to &#X20B9; 2,74,331. However, vide Letter, dated 3-6-2019, which was received on 26-7-2019 by the Respondents, the Applicant's TTA claim was rejected by the Respondents on the grounds that as per Clarification, dated 3-6-2019 issued by Ministry of Finance, the Applicant had opted for voluntary retirement and hence, the benefits available under technical resignation norms were not applicable to him.
The Applicant contends that his resignation qualifies as a technical resignation under the relevant Master Circular, dated 8-4-2016 as
(i) he applied through proper channel,
(ii) The resignation was required for administrative reasons to join the new post and
(iii) Rule 41 (1)
(a) under which the Applicant resigned allows for retirement upon appointment to another post, thereby reinforcing the character of technical resignation.
The Applicant further contended that as per Clause 4
(iii) of the Master Circular, dated 8-4-2016, an employee shall be entitled to TTA and Composite Transfer Grant equivalent to last drawn pay upon relinquishment of charge, without distinguishing the mode of relinquishment (resignation, retirement, deputation, etc.) and that the ground of voluntary retirement being a bar to TTA is unsupported by rules or law.
The Applicant further contended that the Government of Odisha, vide Corrigendum, dated 16-10-2019, deleted the word “voluntarily” from the retirement order, clarifying that the Applicant retired and did not take voluntary retirement in the strict sense of the term. Moreover, the amount received by the Applicant as pension is being deducted from every month's salary which establishes the fact that he is not enjoying double benefits.
The Applicant further submitted that he was appointed after due competitive selection through the Search-cum-Selection Committee and that the Office Order, dated 11-4-2018 issued by Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance is applicable to him. The Applicant therefore vigorously contended that denial of TTA was discriminatory and inconsistent and the Applicant prayed for the quashing of the rejection order and a direction to the Respondents to reimburse the full TTA amount of &#X20B9; 2,74,331, in light of the facts and legal provisions.
The Respondents opposed the Applicant's claim for Transfer Travelling Allowance (TTA) on the ground that the Applicant did not technically resign from the Orissa Judicial Service but was instead retired, as evidenced by the initial Letter, dated 27-4-2018 wherein the Applicant sought resignation. The Applicant had made a subsequent amendment of the request converting it to voluntary retirement. Moreover, by Notification, dated 7-5-2018 read with the Corrigendum dated 16-10-2019, the Odisha Government had declared that the Applicant had retired from the post of ADJ in Odisha. The Respondents further maintained that the OM, dated 8-4-2016 pertains to permanent State Government employees who technically resign to join the Central Government and where the benefit of past service is carried forward, whereas the Applicant had retired and not resigned and therefore, the Applicant did not qualify for TTA under the technical resignation clause of the OM.
The Applicant filed a rejoinder reiterating the same facts and the Respondents also filed sur-rejoinder emphasizing the same grounds as filed in the reply statement. The Respondents further submitted that the Applicant has been changing his stand repeatedly by stating in the first instance as technical resignation, then as voluntary retirement and the claim of the Applicant has not produced any rule to support his claim.

FRSR

Officials who resign or obtain voluntary retirement from State Government service and take up fresh appointment in Central Government are not entitled to Transfer Travelling Allowance (TTA) which is applicable only in the case of Technical resignation. Supple mentary Rules applicable to Central Government employees do not support reimbursement for transfers from State Government posts — This chunk discusses a legal case (O.A. No. 724 of 2019) regarding an applicant who was previously serving as an Additional District Judge in Orissa Judiciary but later joined the Customs, Excise and... — Facts:The Applicant, prior to his appointment to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai as Judicial Member, was serving as an Additional District Judge (ADJ) in the Orissa Judiciary under the Orissa Superior Judicial Services. Upon selection and appointment as Member (Judicial) in CESTAT, he submitted his resignation from the post of ADJ. The resignation was made under Rule 41(1)
(a) of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, thereby opting for a retiring pension.
The Applicant, vide Letter, dated 4-6-2018, sought an advance towards Transfer Travelling Allowance (TTA) and was sanctioned &#X20B9; 1,25,000. Subsequently, he submitted actual TTA bills amounting to &#X20B9; 2,74,331. However, vide Letter, dated 3-6-2019, which was received on 26-7-2019 by the Respondents, the Applicant's TTA claim was rejected by the Respondents on the grounds that as per Clarification, dated 3-6-2019 issued by Ministry of Finance, the Applicant had opted for voluntary retirement and hence, the benefits available under technical resignation norms were not applicable to him.
The Applicant contends that his resignation qualifies as a technical resignation under the relevant Master Circular, dated 8-4-2016 as
(i) he applied through proper channel,
(ii) The resignation was required for administrative reasons to join the new post and
(iii) Rule 41 (1)
(a) under which the Applicant resigned allows for retirement upon appointment to another post, thereby reinforcing the character of technical resignation.
The Applicant further contended that as per Clause 4
(iii) of the Master Circular, dated 8-4-2016, an employee shall be entitled to TTA and Composite Transfer Grant equivalent to last drawn pay upon relinquishment of charge, without distinguishing the mode of relinquishment (resignation, retirement, deputation, etc.) and that the ground of voluntary retirement being a bar to TTA is unsupported by rules or law.
The Applicant further contended that the Government of Odisha, vide Corrigendum, dated 16-10-2019, deleted the word “voluntarily” from the retirement order, clarifying that the Applicant retired and did not take voluntary retirement in the strict sense of the term. Moreover, the amount received by the Applicant as pension is being deducted from every month's salary which establishes the fact that he is not enjoying double benefits.
The Applicant further submitted that he was appointed after due competitive selection through the Search-cum-Selection Committee and that the Office Order, dated 11-4-2018 issued by Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance is applicable to him. The Applicant therefore vigorously contended that denial of TTA was discriminatory and inconsistent and the Applicant prayed for the quashing of the rejection order and a direction to the Respondents to reimburse the full TTA amount of &#X20B9; 2,74,331, in light of the facts and legal provisions.
The Respondents opposed the Applicant's claim for Transfer Travelling Allowance (TTA) on the ground that the Applicant did not technically resign from the Orissa Judicial Service but was instead retired, as evidenced by the initial Letter, dated 27-4-2018 wherein the Applicant sought resignation. The Applicant had made a subsequent amendment of the request converting it to voluntary retirement. Moreover, by Notification, dated 7-5-2018 read with the Corrigendum dated 16-10-2019, the Odisha Government had declared that the Applicant had retired from the post of ADJ in Odisha. The Respondents further maintained that the OM, dated 8-4-2016 pertains to permanent State Government employees who technically resign to join the Central Government and where the benefit of past service is carried forward, whereas the Applicant had retired and not resigned and therefore, the Applicant did not qualify for TTA under the technical resignation clause of the OM.
The Applicant filed a rejoinder reiterating the same facts and the Respondents also filed sur-rejoinder emphasizing the same grounds as filed in the reply statement. The Respondents further submitted that the Applicant has been changing his stand repeatedly by stating in the first instance as technical resignation, then as voluntary retirement and the claim of the Applicant has not produced any rule to support his claim.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text