Service Law:
Pension – Claim for – Denied on the ground that the employee had forfeited his past services, by resigning – Challenged – High Court held that the employee was entitled to pensionary benefit as he had completed twenty years of service’ the legal effect of his resignation letter would amount to voluntary retirement – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: There is distinction between ‘resignation’ and ‘voluntary retirement’ – As per Pension Rules resignation entails forfeiture of past service – The employee having opted for ‘resignation’ cannot claim pensionary benefit on the ground that earlier voluntary retirement was denied to him – Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 – r. 26.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Rule 26 of the Central Civil Service Pension Rules, 1972 states that upon resignation, an employee forfeits his past service. Irrespective of whether the first respondent had completed the requisite years of service to apply for voluntary retirement, his was a decision to resign and not a decision to seek voluntary retirement. If this court were to re-classify his resignation as a case of voluntary retirement, this would obfuscate the distinction between the concepts of resignation and voluntary retirement and render the operation of Rule 26 nugatory. Such an approach cannot be adopted. [Para 12][554-E-G; 555-A]
2. The appellant-employer had denied the first respondent’s application for voluntary retirement on the ground that the first respondent had not completed twenty years of service. It was thus urged that the appellant’s decision to deny the first respondent voluntary retirement was illegal as the first respondent had completed twenty years of service. Even if he was denied voluntary retirement, the first respondent did not challenge this decision but resigned. The denial of voluntary retirement does not mitigate the legal consequences that flow from resignation. No evidence has been placed on the record to show that the first respondent took issue with the denial of voluntary retirement. To the contrary, in the legal notice sent by the first respondent to the appellant, the first respondent admitted to having resigned. The first respondent’s writ petition was instituted thirteen years after the denial of voluntary retirement and eventual resignation. In the light of these circumstances, the denial of voluntary retirement cannot be invoked before this Court to claim pensionary benefits when the first respondent has admittedly resigned. [Para 13, 14][555-B-E]
3. Therefore the question whether the first respondent has served twenty years, is of no legal consequence to the present dispute. Even if the first respondent had served twenty years, under Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules his past service stands forfeited upon resignation. The first respondent is therefore not entitled to pensionary benefits. [Para 15][555-F] Senior Divisional Manager, LIC v Shree Lal Meena (Shree Lal Meena II”) (2019) 4 SCC 479 – relied on.
Asger Ibrahim Amin v LIC (2016) 13 SCC 797 – stood overruled. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC v Shree Lal Meena (“Shree Lal Meena 1”) (2015) 17 SCC 43 : [2015] 12 SCR 158 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.