Summary
The Court denied pension to an employee who had resigned after his application for voluntary retirement was refused. Resignation and voluntary retirement had distinct legal consequences, and completion of the qualifying service could not convert one into the other. Applying Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules, his past service stood forfeited. The earlier refusal of voluntary retirement had not been challenged before resignation, and the length-of-service dispute was therefore immaterial.
Issues
- Whether resignation could be reclassified as voluntary retirement because the employee claimed twenty years of service.
- Whether the earlier unchallenged refusal of voluntary retirement preserved entitlement to pension after resignation.
Provisions considered
- Rule 26(1), Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972The employee’s resignation entailed forfeiture of his past service and defeated his pension claim in this case. (¶¶ 12, 15)
Held
- Resignation and voluntary retirement could not be substituted merely by reference to length of service. Shree Lal Meena II had disapproved Asger Ibrahim Amin, on which the High Court relied; beneficial interpretation could not defeat express pension-rule conditions. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
- The employee did not challenge refusal of voluntary retirement before choosing to resign, subsequently acknowledged the resignation and instituted the writ petition thirteen years later. The refusal could not mitigate the consequences of resignation in those circumstances. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- Whether twenty years of service had actually been completed had no legal consequence here because past service stood forfeited on resignation under Rule 26. The employee was not entitled to pensionary benefits. (¶¶ 12, 15)
Result
Appeal allowed. Delhi High Court’s impugned order dated 26 May 2017 set aside. No order as to costs.