The Supreme Court examined the scope and interpretation of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules in a case concerning the entitlement of a government employee to pension after resignation from service. The Court considered whether an employee who had voluntarily resigned from government service could subsequently claim pensionary benefits on the basis of past service rendered prior to resignation. The matter arose from a challenge to the denial of pension under the applicable pension rules, with the employee contending that resignation should not automatically disentitle him from pension benefits accrued during his years of service.
The Court analysed the statutory framework governing pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, focusing particularly on the provisions that deal with forfeiture of past service. The relevant rules clearly distinguish between different modes of exit from service, such as retirement, voluntary retirement, dismissal, removal, and resignation. The Court noted that resignation occupies a distinct position within the scheme of the rules and is treated differently from retirement or voluntary retirement. According to the rules, resignation from service entails forfeiture of past service unless specific exceptions apply.
In its reasoning, the Supreme Court emphasised that pension is not an automatic or inherent right but a statutory benefit governed strictly by the rules framed by the competent authority. The entitlement to pension depends entirely on fulfilling the conditions prescribed under the pension rules. The Court observed that under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, past service stands forfeited upon resignation, and once past service is forfeited, the foundation for claiming pension ceases to exist. Therefore, an employee who resigns cannot later seek pensionary benefits on the basis of service rendered prior to resignation.
The employee before the Court had argued that resignation should be treated on par with voluntary retirement, particularly when the resignation was tendered after completing a substantial period of service. It was contended that the purpose of pension is to provide social security for employees who have devoted a significant part of their working life to public service and that denying pension in such cases would be unjust. The Court, however, rejected this argument, holding that the statutory scheme makes a clear and conscious distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement. Voluntary retirement is specifically provided for under the rules and carries with it eligibility for pension, subject to fulfilment of the prescribed qualifying service. Resignation, on the other hand, results in forfeiture of past service unless the resignation is submitted to take up another appointment under the government with proper permission.
The Supreme Court further noted that the rules contain a limited exception where resignation does not lead to forfeiture of past service, namely when the resignation is submitted to take up another appointment under the government or a government-controlled body, with prior permission. Outside this narrowly defined exception, resignation leads to complete forfeiture of past service. The Court held that this exception could not be expanded by interpretation to cover cases where an employee resigns for personal reasons or to take up employment outside the government framework.
In addressing the broader principles underlying pension law, the Court reiterated that pensionary benefits are a matter of policy and legislative intent. Courts cannot rewrite or dilute statutory provisions on sympathetic considerations. The Court observed that while pension serves a welfare purpose, it is nonetheless governed by precise statutory conditions. If the rules expressly provide that resignation results in forfeiture of past service, the courts are bound to give effect to that mandate. Any relaxation or modification of such provisions lies within the domain of the rule-making authority and not the judiciary.
The Supreme Court also examined earlier judicial precedents dealing with similar issues and found consistent recognition of the principle that resignation results in forfeiture of past service under the pension rules. The Court distinguished cases where employees were granted pension after voluntary retirement or superannuation, noting that those situations involved entirely different statutory provisions. It clarified that allowing pension after resignation would effectively render the forfeiture clause meaningless and defeat the legislative intent behind maintaining a distinction between resignation and retirement.
The Court rejected the contention that long years of service by themselves could create an equitable right to pension in the absence of statutory backing. It held that equity cannot override clear statutory provisions. The length of service rendered prior to resignation, no matter how substantial, cannot confer a right to pension when the rules explicitly state that such service stands forfeited upon resignation. The Court further observed that employees are deemed to be aware of the service conditions governing their employment, including the consequences of resignation.
In concluding its judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed that an employee who resigns from government service is not entitled to pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, as resignation leads to forfeiture of past service. The Court upheld the denial of pension to the employee and reiterated that pensionary benefits can only be claimed in accordance with the statutory framework. The ruling reinforced the settled legal position that resignation and retirement are fundamentally different concepts under service law, with distinct legal consequences, and that courts cannot blur this distinction by judicial interpretation.
The judgment clarified the legal position for government employees and administrative authorities alike, reaffirming that resignation results in the loss of pensionary entitlement unless the resignation falls within the specific statutory exception provided under the rules. Through this decision, the Supreme Court underscored the primacy of statutory provisions in determining service benefits and reiterated that pension is a conditional benefit, not an automatic right arising from past service alone.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.