Resignation under CCS Pension Rules Rule 26 forfeits past service, barring pensionary benefits to employee or family despite service rendered; distinct from voluntary retirement; no retrospective application or compassionate allowance.

1.By way of present petition, the petitioner being widow of deceased Ranjha Ram, who was working with the respondents-Department and resigned from service w.e.f. 13.08.2003, has prayed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

“a). That the respondent may be directed to release/grant the family pension to the applicant.

b) That the direction may kindly be issued to the respondents that all the pensionary benefits due from the date the pension is payable to the husband of the applicant may be released to the applicant with interest etc. in the interest of justice and fair play.

c) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of Mandamus, thereby directing the respondents to grant the applicant/petitioner compassionate allowances as admissible to him as per the law.”

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the husband of the applicant was appointed with the respondents-State as Helper. As per pleadings in the petition, he had worked with the respondents-State w.e.f. 01.11.1983 to 30.12.1996. Thereafter, he was conferred work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.1997 vide office order dated 22.05.1998

3. The husband of the petitioner had resigned from service on 13.08.2003, which resignation was accepted vide letter dated 17.11.2003 w.e.f. 13.08.2003 (Annexure R-1).

4. The applicant being the widow had filed the present petition seeking the relief that since the husband of the applicant had worked for 13 years as daily waged Helper and thereafter for seven years on work charge basis, her husband was entitled to pension. However, the respondents- State did not take any call on his requests. After his death, the petitioner made repeated verbal and written requests for grant of family pension to her, but till date nothing has been done by the respondents in writing and they verbally told her that she is not entitled to pension. The action on the part of the respondents not to grant her pension is highly illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and not sustain in the eyes of law.

5. The respondents filed reply to petition and have admitted that the husband of the petitioner was conferred with the work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.1997. However, his resignation was accepted on 17.11.2003 with effect from the date of tendering resignation i.e. on 13.08.2003. It has been averred that the husband of the petitioner had rendered only 6 years, 7 months and 13 days of regular service, including work charge service, which is less than required 10 years of regular service, including work charge service as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 for becoming entitled to pension. It has further been averred that the husband of the petitioner had tendered his resignation with the Executive Engineer and, therefore, as per provisions of Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, once an employee tenders his resignation from service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service. Hence, the petitioner’s husband was not entitled for benefit of subsequent changes in law as well as policy.

6. I have heard Mr.Anil Chauhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner and Mr.Sikander Bhushan, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and carefully perused the record.

7. Before adverting to the fa