The right to pension is a property right under Article 300A, but can be denied under statutory provisions if the individual has resigned or been dismissed from service.

Headnote:(A) All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955 - Rule 7(2) - All India Service (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 - Rule 5(1) - Deemed resignation of IAS officer due to unauthorized absence - The applicant, an IAS officer, was deemed to have resigned after remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty for over five years. The Tribunal upheld the denial of pension based on statutory provisions, emphasizing that the right to pension is governed by law and can be denied under specific circumstances. (Paras 5, 6, 8)

(B) Constitutional Right - The right to receive pension is recognized as a property right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, but it is subject to statutory rules governing its grant. (Paras 3, 8)

(C) Discretionary Power - The competent authority has discretion under Rule 5(1) to grant or deny pensionary benefits, which must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily. (Paras 6, 8)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, an IAS officer, was on foreign assignment from 1993 to 1995 but failed to return to duty, leading to his deemed resignation in 2001. He later sought pension benefits, which were denied based on his unauthorized absence.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found no merit in the application, affirming the denial of pension based on the statutory rules.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the deemed resignation and the applicant's entitlement to pension under the AIS (DCRB) Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's deemed resignation was valid and that the denial of pension was justified under the applicable rules.

Result: Application dismissed.

ORDER

Justice Ranjit More, Chairman :

The applicant, by filing present Original Application, has sought following relief:

“(i) Set aside Order No.22012/04/2018-IAS-III dated 12.04.2023 as bad in law,

(ii) Direct Respondent to pay the full amount of pension of Applicant due under the Rules from the date of foreign assignment (03.12.1993) with applicable interest, as the right had not been denied under Ryle 5(1) AIS (DCRB) Rules, in accordance with a time frame determined by the Tribunal.”

2. Undisputed facts which gave rise to this Application are as follows:

2.1 The applicant was an IAS officer of 1971 batch borne in the cadre of Uttar Pradesh. He was granted permission to take up a foreign assignment with the United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, from 03.12.1993 to 02.11.1994, which was subsequently extended up to 30.06.1995. Since no further extension was granted thereafter, the applicant was required to report for duty in his parent cadre, but he did not report for duty. Thus, the applicant remained unauthorizedly absent from duty with effect from 01.07.1995.

2.2 The respondent vide letters dated 22.08.1997 and 24.12.1997 informed the applicant that his request for continuance on foreign assignment was not agreed to, and accordingly directed him to return to the cadre. However, the applicant remained unauthorizedly absent from duty for more than five years (since 01.07.1995), and did not return to his duty despite specific directions to do so. A show cause notice was issued to the applicant on 25.01.2001. Despite this, the applicant did not return to join duty. Accordingly, after following due procedure, the President was pleased to issue notification dated 18.05.2001 whereby the applicant was deemed to have resigned from the Indian Administrative Service with effect from 01.07.1995 in terms of Rule 7(2) of the All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955 (for short, AIS (Leave) Rules, 1955).

2.3 The applicant admittedly accepted the said notification dated 18.05.2001, and did not assail the same in any proceedings. However, in the year 2016, the applicant, for the very first time, represented to the respondent claiming that his deemed resignation may be treated as voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 01.07.1995. He also claimed that he be released his pension with arrears on the premise that his deemed resignation under Rule 7(2) of the AIS (Leave) Rules, 1955 would not tantamount to misconduct, and his status as “deemed to have resigned” would not invite the penalty of forfeiture of his past service. The representations of the applicant were not acceded to by the respondent as conveyed vide communications dated 24.11.2016, 26.12.2016 and 06.01.2017. The applicant approached this Tribunal by filing OA No.1805/2017, seeking relief inter alia to set aside the said communications.

However, the Tribunal vide order dated 09.10.2018, dismissed the OA, upholding the deemed resignation and its consequences.

2.4 The applicant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and preferred Writ Petition (C) No.13401/2018. This Writ Petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 14.02.2019 directing the respondent, inter alia to consider the applicant’s claim for grant of pension or compassionate allowance in terms of the proviso to Rule 5(1) of the All India Service (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (for short, AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958). In compliance with this order of the Hon’ble High Court, the matter was examined by the respondent, and it was not found feasible to accede to the claim/request of the applicant for grant of pensionary benefits or compassionate allowance, vide a speaking order dated 01.07.2019.

2.5 Aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2019, the applicant preferred CM Application No.36087/2019 in WP(C) No.13401/2018 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The said CM Application was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court on 07.02.2023, direct

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 719

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALMr. Justice Ranjit More, CJ, Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, JMukul Sanwal – AppellantVersusUnion Of India – RespondentO.A./2362/2023

The right to pension is a property right under Article 300A, but can be denied under statutory provisions if the individual has resigned or been dismissed from service.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Justice Ranjit More, CJ, Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, J
Mukul Sanwal – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
O.A./2362/2023