SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 1124

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Shyamal Kumar Das, S/o Lt.Niranjan Kumar Das - Appellant 
Versus
The Union Of India And Ors - Respondent 
WP(C) 3239 of 2014
Decided On : 19-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. P. Mahanta.
For the Respondents: Mr. S.P. Choudhury, Asstt.Solicitor General of India.

Resignation from service leads to automatic forfeiture of past service and pension rights under Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, regardless of prior continuous service.

Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 26 - Petition against rejection of pension claim - Resignation from service leads to forfeiture of past service unless for taking another government role with permission - The court evinces clarity on entitlement to pension relative to qualifying service of 10 years - By resigning, the petitioner forfeited all pension rights - Past service forfeiture indicated no wrongful withholding by the authorities, affirming their position - (Paras 5, 9, 10)

(B) Service jurisprudence - Resignation versus voluntary retirement - Distinctions crucial for entitlement to benefits post-resignation - Mere continuous service does not guarantee pension without proper retirement protocols. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, after 13 years of service in the Border Roads Organization, resigned for personal reasons but later sought pension entitlement citing changes in pension policy. He alleged wrongful denial of benefits requested multiple times.

Findings of Court:
The court confirmed that resignation leads to automatic forfeiture of past service and consequent denial of pension benefits as per Rules.

Issues: The legality of rejection of the pension claim based on resignation and the definition of resignation versus voluntary retirement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that resignation leads to forfeiture of pension rights as per the relevant CCS Pension Rules; mere continuous service does not suffice for pension entitlement.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner aggrieved by pension denial. (Para 2)
2. petitioner's arguments for pension entitlement. (Para 3)
3. respondent asserts all dues paid, denies pension entitlement. (Para 4)
4. rule 26 addresses resignation and forfeiture of past service. (Para 5 , 6)
5. interpretation of resignation and its legal implications. (Para 7)
6. resignation entails forfeiture of past service. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
7. supreme court rulings on resignation and pension rights. (Para 11 , 12)
8. court dismisses petition; parties bear own costs. (Para 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for the respondent authorities.

2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the letter of the Director General, Border Roads, being No. 15103/GEN/DGBR/26/E1C’B’ dated 12 October, 2010. It is to be noted here that vide said letter, the Director General, Border Roads had rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for grant of pension.

3. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on 17.04.1995, as Overseer in General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF), under, Border Roads Organization in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India. But, on account of illness of his mother and in absence of any person to look after her, he had submitted his resignation on 22.03.2008, however he was released from his service with effect from 5th April, 2008 vide releasing order No. 1413/Out/130/E1 Camp dated 4th April, 2008, after rendering of 13 (thirteen) years of continuous service.

3.1. Mr. Mahanta, also submits that after his resignation he has been paid the gratuity and different arrears of pay as per 6 Central Pay Commission with half of the leave encashment by illegally withholding major portion of the leave encashment accumulated for 124 days during his total 13 years service. And in spite of repeated request for granting him pension, the authority did not pay any heed to the same, though the qualifying service period for entitlement pension is 10 years. Mr. Mahanta, further submits that in the meantime, the Ministry of Personnel, Pension and Public Grievances, Department of Pension and Pensioner’s Welfare, brought some amendment to the provision of pensionand as per Clause 5.3 of the Office Memorandum dated 2 of September, 2008, full pension has been granted at the rate of 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to the retiring Government servant, after qualifying service of 10 (ten) years, by superseding earlier prorate pension, as under Rules 49 (2) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rule, 1972. Mr. Mahanta submits, the petitioner has filed a representation on 19.08.2010, to grant him pension as per provision of Clause 5.3 of the Office Memorandum dated 2nd September, 2008, but, the respondent authorities vide letter dated 22 October, 2010 informed the petitioner that his prayer for pension is rejected.

3.2. And being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to grant pension to the petitioner by setting aside the letter being No. 15103/GEN/DGBR/26/E1C’B’ dated 12th October,2010 issued by the Director General, Border Roads. Mr. Mahanta also submits that the action of the respondent authority in rejecting the representation of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary and therefore, contended to allow the petition setting aside the impugned letter dated 22nd October, 2010.

4. Per contra, Mr. Choudhury, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, submits that the respondents authorities have paid all the amounts which the petitioner is legally entitled to and encashment of earned leave and arrear salary as per recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission, had already been paid and no amount is being withheld by the respondent authorities. Mr. Chaudhury further submits that though the petitioner has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top