Resignation forfeits past service; legal heirs entitled to gratuity and leave encashment after five years of service, but not entitled to pension under specified rules.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning the order¹ [Dated 20.12.2022 in W.P. (C) No. 13642/2018] passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.² [High Court of Delhi at New Delhi] The High Court has upheld the orders³ [Dated 24.09.2018 in O.A. No. 4645/2015 and 29.10.2018 in R.A. No. 207/2018] passed by the Tribunal⁴ [Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi] by which the claim of the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant, for release of the pensionary benefits of the deceased employee, was declined.

3. Briefly, the facts as available on record are that the deceased appellant/Ashok Kumar Dabas was selected and appointed as conductor with the respondent/Corporation⁵ [Delhi Transport Corporation] in the year 1985. Vide Office Order No. 16 dated 27.11.1992 a new pension scheme was introduced in the Corporation. The deceased employee opted for the same. He resigned from the job on 07.08.2014 citing family circumstances. The same was accepted by the competent authority on 19.09.2014. Later on, vide letter dated 13.04.2015 a request was made for withdrawal of the resignation. The same was declined by the competent authority of the Corporation vide order dated 28.04.2015. On 15.10.2015, the deceased employee requested the respondent for release of his retiral benefits, namely, gratuity, provident fund, leave encashment and pension. Vide order dated 23.10.2015 considering the fact that the employee/Ashok Kumar Dabas had resigned from service, the Corporation informed him that he was found entitled to only provident fund and no other benefit.

4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Corporation, an application⁶ [O.A. No. 4645/2015] was filed by the deceased employee before the Tribunal. The same was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 24.09.2018. The appellant thereafter filed a review application⁷ [R.A. No. 207/2018 in O.A.No. 4645/2015] which was also dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 29.10.2018. Still aggrieved, Ashok Kumar Dabas/deceased employee approached the High Court by filing a writ petition which was dismissed vide impugned order, as noticed above. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant is before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the letter submitted by the deceased employee to resign from the job may not have been happily worded as he was not conversant with the legal language. The same should not be taken to the extent that he should be denied all his retiral benefits. The pension is not a bounty. It is earned by an employee after putting in long service. He had put in about 30 years of service and had resigned on account of family circumstances. Even if he had not completed 30 years of service, his period of service was more than 20 years and as per Rule 48 of Pension Rules⁸ [Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short ‘1972 Rules’)] he was entitled to receive pension. It will be too harsh to forfeit his entire service benefits merely because of a minor error in the resignation letter submitted by him. The Corporation as well as courts below should have taken a pragmatic view of the matter and not deprive the deceased employee of his retiral dues.

5.1 In support of his arguments, he referred to the judgments of this Court in Reserve Bank of India and another v. Cecil Dennis Solomon and another , (2004) 9 SCC 461 : 2003 INSC 688 a