Discharge from service at one's own request results in forfeiture of past service, precluding entitlement to pensionary benefits under applicable pension rules.

JUDGMENT :

(MITALI THAKURIA, J.)

Heard Mr. Imti Longchar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. N. Mozhui, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6.

2. The petitioner has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of Certiorari, Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State respondent to pay pension and pensionary benefits for the service rendered by the petitioner as a constable for 14 years 11 months and 3 days.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief is that, he belongs to Sangtam st tribe and was recruited to ADM Coy of 1 Nagaland Armed Police (NAP), Chumukedima as constable in the scale of pay by Office Order No. 126/76 W/E dated 10.05.1976 and by Office Order No. NAP (Estt) 92/79-80/5588-94 and he was posted to 3rd NAP Battalion, Tuensang w.e.f. 07.11.1979 and allotted the Regimental No. 32237. After serving for long 14 years 11 months and 3 days, the petitioner applied for his discharge on 03.03.1991 and after due consideration by the appointing authority i.e., the Commandant discharged the petitioner w.e.f 01.04.1991 by Office Order No. 3HQ(RO-3)91-92/1102 dated 03.04.1991 as reflected from his service book and to that effect Discharged Certificate was granted to him on 16.11.1994.

4. It is further stated that despite taking due discharge from the competent authority, the petitioner was not given pension and service benefits. As such through help of a well-wisher as the petitioner being illiterate, he made a representation before the Director General of Police, Nagaland, Kohima on 23.04.2019 seeking payment of his pension and retirement benefits. However, vide Letter No. 3NAP(RO-3) 2019-20/990 rd dated 03.09.2019, the Commandant, 3 NAP Battalion, Tuensang had denied the same, stating that he was discharged from his service w.e.f 01.04.1991, at his own request. As per available records in the office, his GIS/GPF and leave encashment had already been prepared from the office. Further, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to pension and retirement benefits, as he was discharged from his service on his own request.

5. Mr. Longchar, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Nagaland had communicated to the Director General of Police that as per Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service. It was the Department’s view that the petitioner was discharged from his service at his own request. Hence, thereby entailing forfeiture of his past service. Consequently, it is the Department’s view that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of pension or retirement benefits.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the pension is a matter of right and cannot be treated as bounty at the hands of the authority, the law clearly casts a duty upon the employer to pay pension to its employees. As such, the respondents are duty-bound to pay the pensionary benefits to the present petitioner. Therefore, the interference of this Court is necessary in the present case.

7. Mr. Longchar, learned counsel for the petitioner, to substantiate his submission, he also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court repo