Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14282
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.V. BHATTI, BASANT BALAJI, JJ
P.M.RAGHAVANUNNI – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
OP (CAT) 61 2017
SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.T.V.VINU
Rule 26(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, which mandates service forfeiture on resignation, is constitutional and distinguishes between resignation and other forms of service cessation.
Headnote:
Forfeiture - Pension - CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 - Rule 26(1) - The court upheld that Rule 26(1) which mandates forfeiture of past service upon resignation is constitutional, as it distinguishes between resignation and other forms of retirement.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, after resigning from the Military Engineer Service in 1982, sought pension and gratuity. His request was denied based on Rule 26(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, which forfeits past service upon resignation.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, affirming that Rule 26(1) is valid and distinguishes resignation from other forms of termination such as voluntary retirement. The applicant's claims regarding unfair treatment were rejected.
Issues: Whether Rule 26(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, which forfeits service upon resignation, is unconstitutional and whether the applicant is entitled to pension benefits despite resignation.
Ratio Decidendi: The distinction between resignation and other forms of service cessation is essential; Rule 26(1) clearly stipulates consequences for resignation, thus it serves a legitimate purpose and is constitutional.
Final Decision: The Original Petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
S.V.Bhatti, J.
We have heard Adv.U. Balagangadharan and Adv. T.V.Vinu for the parties.
2. The applicant in O.A (EKM) No.473/2013 is the petitioner. The applicant filed O.A (EKM) No.473/2013 for the following reliefs:
“i) Declare Rule 26(1) of CCS (P) Rules 1972 as unconscionable, arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional to the extent it seeks to forfeit past service of an employee o tendering resignation. OR ii) Direction to reconsider the case of the applicant for pension and other benefits commensurate with the service rendered by him in relaxation of Rule 26(1) invoking power under Rule 88 of CCS (Pension)
Rules. OR iii) Direct the 1st respondent to grant pension and other terminal benefits untrammelled by the rigor of Rule 26(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules by following the principle of reading down.
iv) Issue such other order that the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. On 08.07.1964, the applicant was appointed as Superintendent Grade I, Class III post (Junior Engineer) in the Military Engineer Service (for short, MES). On 05.01.1976, he was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in MES. The applicant tendered a resignation letter, and it was accepted. He was discharged from service on 09.01.1982. The applicant firstly tried for reappointment in MES, which could not be considered for want of a Rule enabling reappointment. After that, the applicant applied for pension and gratuity commensurate with his service in MES. The request for pension and gratuity could not also be considered by referring to the forfeiture provided for in Rule 26(1) CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, which reads as follows:
26. Forfeiture of service on resignation.
(1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service.
(2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if It has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies.
(3) Interruption in service in a case falling under sub-rule (2), due to the two appointments being at different stations, not exceeding the joining time permissible under the rules of transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government servant on the date of relief or by formal condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to him.
4. Therefore, the applicant challenges the very Rule by which past service is forfeited for calculating the pensionable service. It is contended that Rule 26(1) CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 is illegal and discriminatory, in as much as a Government servant imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement draws pension and other benefits. The denial of the pension in the case of resignation is illegal. The applicant contends that the pension is a ‘deferred payment’ earned while in service. With the resignation, the ‘deferred payment’ is not entirely wiped away unless specifically and consciously abandoned. The applicant endeavours that the legislative intention of Rule 26 is not to deprive a Government servant who resigns from service or post after rendering the required qualifying service from receiving the pension. The forfeiture of past service is untenable and wholly illegal.
5. These are all the broad grounds on which the challenge to Rule 26(1) was laid by the applicant. The Tribunal considered the issues in great detail through the order under challenge and rejected the prayers. The Tribunal has also noted that there is a difference between voluntary cessation and compulsory cessation of the relationship pursuant to the disciplinary action. The Tribunal concluded the issue in paragraphs 34 to 36 in the order under challenge as follows:
“34. In service jurisprudence the expressions superannuations, voluntary retirement, compulsory retirement and resignation convey different connotations. Volunt
