P.V. Asha, J.

The petitioner who got discharged from Assam Rifles, based on his own request, claims pensionary benefits, treating his discharge from service as voluntary retirement, saying that he was not relieved on resignation.

2. The petitioner joined Assam Rifles, which is a Para Military Force under the Government of India, on 20.3.1995. In order to undergo infertility treatment, he requested for discharge from service and accordingly as per Ext.P1 discharge certificate, he was relieved from service on 31.8.2006, on completion of 11 years 5 months and 12 days of service. The petitioner claims that since he has completed more than ten years of service, he is eligible for pension in the light of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short).

3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was discharged on the basis of his own request on 21.4.2006 and that discharge from service on the basis of his request can only be reckoned as resignation. As per rule 26 of the Rules, a resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service and therefore he is not entitled to pension. The respondents have produced Ext.R1(a) which shows that at the time of relieving of the petitioner, as he had applied for discharge from service on compassionate grounds, he was personally interviewed by the Commandant and it was explained to him that no pensionary benefits would be admissible to him. They have also produced the undertaking certificate dated 20.4.2006 by which the petitioner certified that he understood that he would not be entitled to any pensionary benefits for the service rendered by him in the Assam Rifles. Petitioner was discharged from service, on the basis of the recommendation by the Commandant, after issuing the certificate regarding in-admissibility of pensionary benefits for those discharged on request and after obtaining an undertaking from the petitioner.

4. Even otherwise discharge from service on the basis of one's own request, for his own personal purposes can only be treated as resignation. As the total service rendered by petitioner was only 11 years, the relief from Assam Rifles cannot even be treated as voluntary retirement, since Rule 48A, which deals with voluntary retirement, requires a person to have 20 years of service for availing voluntary retirement. There is no provision under the Rules which enables the petitioner to seek pension. The petitioner is not one who was compulsorily retired in the interest of Government. Therefore, he does not come under the purview of Rule 38, 39, 40, 47 or 48 also.

5. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the Central Government.

6. From the documents produced on either side, it is clear that the petitioner was discharged on the basis of his own request when he did not have the requisite qualifying service for sanctioning pension. More over, in a case where an officer is discharged on request before completing the minimum qualifying service prescribed for becoming eligible for pension, he can only be considered to have tendered resignation which entails forfeiture of past service under Rule 26 of the Rules.

7. Under these circumstances, the petitioner does not have any right for pension as claimed by him. Hence the relief sought by the petitioner to direct the respondents to consider his representation seeking the very same relief also cannot be allowed.

8. Sri. Sanjay, the learned CGSC relied on the judgment of the Apex court in Union of India v. Braj Nandan 2005 (8) SCC 325, in which it was held that a resignation which is submitted for a purpose other than for taking employment under Government will result in forfeiture of service under rule 26 and in such cases the officer will not be eligible for pension. In the judgments of the Apex C