1. Officer resigned from service — Claim for pension via relaxation of rules — Dispute over entitlement to pensionary benefits after resignation. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 718
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : S.Saghir Ahmad
Union Of India
Versus
M.S.Heble
Case No. : 6250 of 1997
Date of Decision : 7/29/98
A Tribunal cannot exercise the enabling power of the Central Government to relax service rules. Where rules explicitly debar a resigned employee from receiving pension, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to grant such benefits by substituting its own discretion for that of the Central Government.
Headnote:(A) All-India Services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 - Rule 5 - All-India Services (Conditions of Service-Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960 - Rule 3 - Resignation from service - Entitlement to pension - Power of relaxation - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - Under Rule 5 of the Retirement Benefits Rules, no retirement benefit can be granted to a person who has resigned from service - Rule 3 of the Residuary Matters Rules provides an enabling power to the Central Government to grant relief in relaxation of certain provisions of the Rules or Regulations - Such power is vested solely in the Central Government - A court or Tribunal cannot exercise this power to grant relief in derogation of the relevant Rules which debars an employee from receiving pension (Para 4).
Facts of the case:
An officer who joined service in 1948 resigned in 1968. The officer subsequently sought pension through relaxation of rules. While the State Government recommended the case for relaxation, the Central Government rejected the representation. The Tribunal subsequently directed the payment of pension and family pension, holding the rejection to be arbitrary.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to exercise the power of relaxation vested in the Central Government. Since the employee had resigned, they were not entitled to pension under the relevant rules, and the Tribunal could not grant relief in derogation of those rules.
Issues: Whether a Tribunal has the jurisdiction to exercise the enabling power of the Central Government to relax rules and grant pensionary benefits to an employee who had resigned from service.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to relax rules under the Residuary Matters Rules is an enabling power vested specifically in the Central Government. A court or Tribunal cannot exercise this discretionary power to override rules that explicitly debar an employee from receiving pension upon resignation.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant pension to a resigned employee by exercising the Central Government's power of relaxation — Maintainability of application after significant delay. (Para 3 )
3. Rule 5 of Retirement Benefits Rules bars pension for resigned employees; power of relaxation under Rule 3 of Residuary Matters Rules is an enabling power of Central Government. (Para 4 )
4. A court or tribunal cannot exercise the enabling power of the Central Government to relax rules and grant benefits in derogation of existing rules. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — Order of the Tribunal set aside. (Para 4 )
6. Can a resigned employee claim pension under the All-India Services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958?
No. Under Rule 5 of the Retirement Benefits Rules, no retirement benefit can be granted to a person who has resigned from the service. (Para 4 )
7. Can a Tribunal exercise the power of relaxation vested in the Central Government under the All-India Services (Conditions of Service-Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960?
No. The power of relaxation under Rule 3 of the Residuary Matters Rules is an enabling power of the Central Government. A court or tribunal cannot exercise that power to grant relief in derogation of the relevant rules. (Para 4 )
8. Does a significant delay between resignation and filing an application bar the jurisdiction of the Tribunal if the final rejection of representation occurred recently?
No. If the final order rejecting the representation was passed recently, the delay between the date of resignation and the filing of the application does not necessarily bar the invocation of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. (Para 4 )
(1) THE Union of India is in appeal against the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal had directed that the respondent should be paid the pension, and since the original respondent has retired in the meantime, the legal representatives should be paid the family pension. Admittedly, the applicant before the Tribunal was an officer in the Indian Police Service. Having joined in the service in the year 1948, he resigned from service with effect from 18-1-1968. From 1973 onwards, he has been making representation to the Union of India through the State Government that pension should be given to him in relaxation of the relevant provisions of the rules which clearly debars him from getting pension by exercising power under Rule 3 of the All-India Services (Conditions of Service-Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960 hereafter referred to as "the Residuary Matters Rules").
(2) THE State Government having considered the representation filed by the employee did recommend his case to the Union of India for necessary relaxation to the provisions contained in Rule 5 of the All-India Services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Retirement Benefits Rules") and grant pension to the employee concerned. The Union Government, however, was not persuaded to accept the recommendation of the State Government, and rejected the representation of the employee concerned, he approached the Tribunal by filing application for necessary relief as already stated. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment, considering all relevant facts, came to the conclusion that the rejection of the representation by the Union Government is arbitrary and therefore, by invoking the powers under Rule 3 of the Residuary Rules and being of the opinion that the employee was entitled to get pension, issued the impugned direction. The Tribunal held that, though the employee concerned was entitled to get pension with effect from the date of his resignation, since sufficient time had elapsed between the date of resignation and a rejection of his representation before the Union of India, it granted the relief for one year prior to the filing of the OA, i.e., 26-10-1993, and further, since the original applicant died during the pendency of the application, the Tribunal also directed that the family pension should be paid to the dependant of the original applicant on a monthly basis in accordance with the Rules.
(3) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Union of India contended that since under theRetirement Benefits Rules, an employee who resigns from the service is not entitled to get any pension and the recommendations of the State Government were not accepted by the Union Government for invoking the power of relaxation as contained in Rule 3 of the Residuary Matters Rules, the Tribunal was wholly without jurisdiction in granting the relief sought for. Learned counsel also further urged that the person concerned having retired as early as in the year 1968, was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the year 1994, after a lapse of this length of time.
(4) SO far as the second contention is concerned, there cannot be much force since the final order of the Union Government rejecting the representation of the applicant was passed only on 15-4-1994. But so far as the first contention of the Union Government is concerned, the same has sufficient force. Under Rule 5 of the Retirement Benefits Rules, no retirement benefit can be granted to a person who has resigned from the service. The original applicant before the Tribunal admittedly resigned from the service with effect from 1-1-1968, and therefore, under the relevant Rules, he was not entitled to claim any pensionary benefit. It is no doubt true that the State Government had recommended his case for sympathetic consideration for invoking the power of relaxation under Rule 3 of the Residuary Matters Rules. But that power is a
