2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4105

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, J, Anand S. Khati, ACJ
Sanjay Narayen – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions – Respondent
O.A. No. 363/2020|OA No. 3923/2017

Resignation and voluntary retirement are distinct; retirement benefits cannot be granted to a person who has resigned under express AIS (DCRB) Rules, and beneficial pension provisions cannot override explicit terms.

Headnote:(A) All India Services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 - Rule 5(1) - No retirement benefits may be granted to a person who has been dismissed or removed from the Service or who has resigned from the Service; Rule 5(2) - where a member is required to retire or resign as a condition of appointment under a Statutory or other body, he shall be granted the retirement benefits to which he would have been entitled if he had been invalidated from the Service and not resigned or retired; Rule 16(2) - a member may retire on completing thirty years of qualifying service or at fifty years of age, with three months’ notice; Rule 16(2A) - retirement on twenty years of qualifying service with three months’ notice and Central Government acceptance; Rule 16(3) - Central Government may require retirement in public interest; these provisions govern entitlement to pensionary and retirement benefits for AIS personnel. (Quoted phrases: “No retirement benefits may be granted to a person who has been dismissed or removed from the Service or who has resigned from the Service”; “a member of the Service may, after giving at least three months’ previous notice in writing, retire from service on the date on which such member completes thirty years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age”; “the Central Government may, in consultation with the State Government concerned and after giving a member of the Service at least three months previous notice in writing, retire… in public interest” (7.1, 7.1, 7.1)).

(B) Principles distinguishing retirement from resignation - The expressions ‘superannuation’, ‘voluntary retirement’, ‘compulsory retirement’ and ‘resignation’ convey different connotations; resignation can be tendered at any time, whereas voluntary retirement requires prescribed qualifying service; resignation normally denies retiral benefits, whereas voluntary retirement does not; permission or notice is not mandated for resignation, but required for voluntary retirement; these distinctions are foundational in service jurisprudence. (Quoted phrases: “In service jurisprudence, the expressions ‘superannuation’, ‘voluntary retirement’, ‘compulsory retirement’ and ‘resignation’ convey different connotations”; “One of the basic distinctions is that in case of resignation it can be tendered at any time, but in the case of voluntary retirement, it can only be sought for after rendering prescribed period of qualifying service”; “the same [retiral benefits] are not denied” for voluntary retirement; “permission of the employer concerned is a requisite condition; They are not interchangeable.” (7.3, 7.3, 7.3, 7.4)).

(C) The court’s position on the interplay of pension regimes and express terms - Pension Schemes form beneficial legislation but their beneficial construction cannot run contrary to the express terms of the provisions; aspects excluded cannot be included by implication; a resignation cannot be read as VRS where the rules expressly prohibit retirement benefits to a person who has resigned. (Quoted phrases: “the expressions...carry different meanings in common parlance. The effect of resignation and retirement to the extent that there is severance of employment but in service jurisprudence both the expressions are understood differently.”; “such beneficial construction cannot run contrary to the express terms of the provisions”; “aspects which are excluded cannot be included in it by implication.” (7.4, 7.8, 7.9)).

(D)

Facts of the case:
- The applicant, after serving for over 30 years, sought voluntary retirement from his post as Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Civil Aviation. - However, in his request dated 08.09.2006, he inadvertently used the term 'resignation' instead of 'voluntary retirement'. - The competent authority accepted his request vide order dated 01.11.2006, and the applicant relinquished his charge w.e.f. 01.11.2006, as per the order issued on 07.11.2006. - When the applicant submitted a representation on 09.06.2017 seeking retirement benefits including gratuity, the response rejected the request by order dated 25.09.2017 under Rule 5(1) of AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958. - An OA (No. 3923/2017) was filed, leading to a judgment on 26.07.2019 granting liberty to make a proper representation, to be decided within three months. - Pursuant to that liberty, a representation was sent on 19.08.2019; respondent 3 rejected it on 02.01.2020 without a speaking order. - The applicant contends the action is illegal/arbitrary and seeks quashing of the 02.01.2020 order and grant of retirement benefits as if treated as voluntary retired from 01.11.2006 with consequential benefits, including interest. - The OA was ultimately dismissed, with no costs. (Facts quoted from: 1.1-1.6; 2; 3-5; 7.1-7.11; 8.1-8.2; and conclusion in 8.1-8.2.) (Findings of Court): - The court concluded that there is no infirmity in the action of the respondents and that the OA is dismissed; the applicant cannot be read into a grant of pensionary benefits under AIS (DCRB) Rules after resignation. (Quoted phrases: “In view of the above detailed analysis, we do not find any infirmity in the action on the part of the respondents. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed.”; “the resignation cannot be read as voluntary retirement under express terms.” (8.1, 7.7-7.9)). (Issues): - Whether the resignation tendered can be treated as voluntary retirement for purposes of pensionary benefits under AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958; whether retirement benefits can be denied or granted contrary to express terms; whether the government is bound to grant pensionary benefits despite resignation. - The court frames these issues through the central distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement and the express prohibitions on retirement benefits where resignation has occurred. (Framing seen in 7.7-7.9 and 7.3-7.4). (Ratio Decidendi): - There is a clear distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement; resignation can be tendered at any time but voluntary retirement requires prescribed qualifying service; normally retiral benefits are denied in resignation cases, whereas voluntary retirement carries entitlements. These principles, as recognized in service jurisprudence, cannot be overridden by reading the applicability of pension schemes to the facts where express terms forbid such benefits post-resignation. (7.3-7.4, 7.7-7.9, and 7.8). - The All India Services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 contain explicit provisions (Rule 5(1)) that no retirement benefits may be granted to a person who has resigned; the rules are to be applied strictly, and benefits cannot be improvised by charity or implied extension. (7.1, 7.7). (Result): - OA is dismissed; no retirement benefits are granted to the applicant; no costs. (8.1-8.2).