Resignation from a service or a post entails forfeiture of past service

The Kerala High Court on 12 June, 2012 in Dileeb B. Vs. Union of India held that resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service.

So, according to Justice P.N. Ravindran, the service rendered by the petitioner in All India Radio during the period from 24.7.1992 to 31.2.1994 stood forfeited on his resignation being accepted and therefore, he cannot claim any service benefit for that period.

# Resignation from Service or Post

While dismissing the writ petition the Court held that sub rule (1) of rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 stipulates that resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service.

Sub rule (2) of rule 26 stipulates that 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.

Sub rule (3) of rule 26 stipulates that 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.

Sub rule (7) of rule 26 stipulates that a resignation submitted for the purpose of Rule 37 shall not entail forfeiture of past service under the Government.

Rule 37 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 stipulates that a Government servant who has been permitted to be absorbed in a service or post in or under a Corporation or Company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government or in or under a Body controlled or financed by the Central Government or a State Government, shall be deemed to have retired from service from the date of such absorption and subject to sub rule (3), he shall be eligible to receive retirement benefits if any, from such date as may be determined, in accordance with the orders of the Central Government applicable to him.

Sub rule (3) of rule 37 stipulates that where there is a pension scheme in a body controlled or financed by the Central Government in which a Government servant is absorbed, he shall be entitled to exercise option either to count the service rendered under the Central Government in that body for pension or to receive pro-rata retirement benefits for the service issued by the Central Government.

The petitioner was not permitted to be absorbed in the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board. Therefore rule 37 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 has no application.

The petitioner’s case is also not covered by any of the exceptions set out in rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. His resignation from All India Radio was accepted and was not withdrawn. His resignation was not submitted, to take up, with the permission of the proper authority, another appointment under the Central Government.

Therefore, rule 26(1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 operates with full force. On the terms of rule 26(1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the service rendered by the petitioner in All India Radio during the period from 24.7.1992 to 31.2.1994 stood forfeited on his resignation being accepted and therefore, he cannot claim any service benefit for that period.

The Court accordingly hold that the challenge to the impugned orders and the claim made by the petitioner based on Board order that he is entitled to pro-rata pension contribution from All India Radio is without any merit.

# Facts of the Case

The petitioner, who is presently employed as Senior Assistant in the Kerala State Electricity Board has filed this writ petition for an order directing the respondents to reckon the service rendered by him in All India Radio under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting during the period from 24.7.1992 to 31.3.1994, for the purpose of computing the length of qualifying service for pension.

The main contention raised in the writ petition is that the petitioner’s resignation from Central Government service was only technical, for the purpose of taking up employment in the Board and therefore, the past service in All India Radio is not forfeited.

Advocates V.A. Muhammed, K.E. Hamza appeared for the petitioner and P. Parameswaran Nair, ASG of India, T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Asst. S.G. of India, M.T. Sheeba, Government Pleader, K.S. Anil, Standing Counsel KSEB appeared for respondents.

Comments