ups_01164 — 1. Whenever an employee rendered resignation without any condition, if otherwise, makes the employee entitled for any service benefit, he cannot be denied those benefits merely on the ground of resignation under garb of provisions of Rule 26 (1) of CCS (Pension) Rules 2. In the present case, the Applicant retired on his own volition before completing qualifying service of 20 years on 21-1-1976. Qualifying service for pensionary benefits as 10 years was given effect only from 1-1-1986. Hence the

UPS

1. Whenever an employee rendered resignation without any condition, if otherwise, makes the employee entitled for any service benefit, he cannot be denied those benefits merely on the ground of resignation under garb of provisions of Rule 26 (1) of CCS (Pension) Rules 2. In the present case, the Applicant retired on his own volition before completing qualifying service of 20 years on 21-1-1976. Qualifying service for pensionary benefits as 10 years was given effect only from 1-1-1986. Hence the Applicant who voluntarily retired with less than 20 years of service on the date of his retirement cannot claim pensionary benefits as his service was then less than 20 years — The chunk provided concerns a legal case where an employee (Applicant) filed an OA seeking pension benefits, despite being denied due to resigning before completing 20 years of service as per Rule 26... — Facts:Applicant herein joined service as LDC on 12-2-1962 in CFL, ASC. He was then given promotion and later was promoted as Senior Lab Assistant on 19-1-1964. Later he was promoted as Junior Scientific Assistant on 21-1-1976. He resigned from that post in August, 1975 and was permitted to resign on 21-1-1976 and discharged from service. At the time of relief, he had put in 13 years, 11 months and 8 days of service and his discharge certificate is at A-3. The Applicant claimed pension which was refused by Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) Allahabad, dated the 18/31 July, 1996. Applicant gave a representation for grant of pension in July, 1996. Before the representation is replied he filed O.A. No. 04 of 1998 which was disposed of by Order, dated 28-10-2005. That was considered by Respondents. As he resigned from service, the Respondents forfeited his service which is less than 20 years. The 20 year rule of service was reduced to 10 years with effect from 1-1-1986, much later than his relief in the year 1976. He was informed by Letter, dated the 12th January, 2007 which is reproduced in the judgment. This OA is filed to set aside the order refusing him pension and pensionary benefits and praying for pensions. It is contended by Respondents that as per Rule 26 (1) of CCS (Pension) Rule, the Applicant is not entitled for pension. As he possess less than 20 years of service, the service had already been forfeited due to his resignation and hence he is not entitled for pension and even otherwise he had not put up 20 years of required service when he retired. The Tribunal considered the arguments of both sides. The first question to be considered is "whether, Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rule apply in the present case and is there any provision of forfeiting qualifying service for grant of pension. To analyze this question, Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rule Forfeiture of service on resignation, is reproduced fully. Similar controversy was analyzed in O.A. No. 353 of 1991 by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bimla Devi v. UoI and others, Reported in 1992 (2) AIS Law Journal at Page 310. Another reported case by the Applicant was also considered in this case by Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that the husband of the Applicant in that OA died on 1-4-1985. Hence the Applicant, wife of the deceased is entitled partly for pension from 1-4-1985 with arrears as per the procedure. In the case of Union of India v. Lt.-Col.P.S. Bhargava [1997 (2) SCC 28], it was held that the qualifying service cannot be forfeited on account of resignation as this rule was governed by "Pension Regulations for the Army" which was issued under the authority of Government of India and applies to Regular Army, Defence Security Corps and the Territorial Army. Rule 22 of Pension Regulation Rule is reproduced which relates to the grant of pension. Regulation 25 provides for the qualifying service and is reproduced as 25
(a) which states that the minimum qualifying service is 25 years of completed qualifying service. The service which qualifies for pension is provided for in Regulation 26. Regulation 38 provides that "All services which qualifies in full in retiring pension also qualifies for gratuity and on the same condition. Regulations contained three provisions namely, 3, 4 and 16 which are reproduced. Regulation 3 provides for reduction of pension or gratuity if the service has not been satisfactory. It is not the case of the Appellant that the Respondent's service was not satisfactory. Hence no reduction of pension or gratuity under Regulation 3 could have been ordered. Regulation 4, 16
(a) are also analyzed pertaining to this case. Rule 26 reveals that resignation other than voluntary retirement or compulsory retirement or resignation is to facilitate the employee to join other department or service. Under such circumstances, the previous service will not be forfeited but if the resignation has been tendered and accepted in normal course, the services rendered by the Applicant shall be forfeited. But the services rendered in the department will be available for terminal or other retiral benefits to the employee. In the present case, the resignation was rendered not to join other departments and his resignation was accepted without any conditions. Otherwise if the Applicant is entitled for any other benefits he cannot be denied merely because of acceptance of his resignation under the garb of provisions of Rule 26 (1) of CCS (Pension) Rule. Accordingly, the first question is decided in favour of the Applicant and against Respondents. The second question is, "whether, the Applicant is entitled to get benefit of reduction of qualifying service from 20 years to 10 years which was made effective from 1-1-1986℃ Applicant herein was not compulsorily retired under Rule 48 nor he was seeking Voluntary Retirement under Rule 48 (a). He sought retirement voluntarily from service after completion of 13 years, 11 months and 8 days of service. The case of J.K.Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Company Ltd. Kanpur v. state of U.P. and others [1990 (4) SCC 27], held that any employee can voluntarily relinquish the job by tendering resignation voluntarily. Further rules that if an employee is not permitted in terms of contract to determine the master and servant relationship, such employment shall be bounded labour. Relevant Paras. 6, 7 and 8 are reproduced for clarity. Bhargawa case (supra) leaves no room to doubt that services of the Applicant rendered before resignation can be taken into consideration for grant of terminal benefit or retiral benefit if the employee would otherwise be entitled for the same. Admittedly the service of the Applicant at the time of his acceptance of his resignation was less than 20 years. No discretion has been exercised to release the eligibility to grant pension to the employee. Hence Court cannot lift the bar contained in statutory rules unless it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Thus this question is decided in favour of Respondents and against the Applicant.

UPS

1. Whenever an employee rendered resignation without any condition, if otherwise, makes the employee entitled for any service benefit, he cannot be denied those benefits merely on the ground of resignation under garb of provisions of Rule 26 (1) of CCS (Pension) Rules 2. In the present case, the Applicant retired on his own volition before completing qualifying service of 20 years on 21-1-1976. Qualifying service for pensionary benefits as 10 years was given effect only from 1-1-1986. Hence the Applicant who voluntarily retired with less than 20 years of service on the date of his retirement cannot claim pensionary benefits as his service was then less than 20 years — The chunk provided concerns a legal case where an employee (Applicant) filed an OA seeking pension benefits, despite being denied due to resigning before completing 20 years of service as per Rule 26... — Facts:Applicant herein joined service as LDC on 12-2-1962 in CFL, ASC. He was then given promotion and later was promoted as Senior Lab Assistant on 19-1-1964. Later he was promoted as Junior Scientific Assistant on 21-1-1976. He resigned from that post in August, 1975 and was permitted to resign on 21-1-1976 and discharged from service. At the time of relief, he had put in 13 years, 11 months and 8 days of service and his discharge certificate is at A-3. The Applicant claimed pension which was refused by Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) Allahabad, dated the 18/31 July, 1996. Applicant gave a representation for grant of pension in July, 1996. Before the representation is replied he filed O.A. No. 04 of 1998 which was disposed of by Order, dated 28-10-2005. That was considered by Respondents. As he resigned from service, the Respondents forfeited his service which is less than 20 years. The 20 year rule of service was reduced to 10 years with effect from 1-1-1986, much later than his relief in the year 1976. He was informed by Letter, dated the 12th January, 2007 which is reproduced in the judgment. This OA is filed to set aside the order refusing him pension and pensionary benefits and praying for pensions. It is contended by Respondents that as per Rule 26 (1) of CCS (Pension) Rule, the Applicant is not entitled for pension. As he possess less than 20 years of service, the service had already been forfeited due to his resignation and hence he is not entitled for pension and even otherwise he had not put up 20 years of required service when he retired. The Tribunal considered the arguments of both sides. The first question to be considered is "whether, Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rule apply in the present case and is there any provision of forfeiting qualifying service for grant of pension. To analyze this question, Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rule Forfeiture of service on resignation, is reproduced fully. Similar controversy was analyzed in O.A. No. 353 of 1991 by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bimla Devi v. UoI and others, Reported in 1992 (2) AIS Law Journal at Page 310. Another reported case by the Applicant was also considered in this case by Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that the husband of the Applicant in that OA died on 1-4-1985. Hence the Applicant, wife of the deceased is entitled partly for pension from 1-4-1985 with arrears as per the procedure. In the case of Union of India v. Lt.-Col.P.S. Bhargava [1997 (2) SCC 28], it was held that the qualifying service cannot be forfeited on account of resignation as this rule was governed by "Pension Regulations for the Army" which was issued under the authority of Government of India and applies to Regular Army, Defence Security Corps and the Territorial Army. Rule 22 of Pension Regulation Rule is reproduced which relates to the grant of pension. Regulation 25 provides for the qualifying service and is reproduced as 25
(a) which states that the minimum qualifying service is 25 years of completed qualifying service. The service which qualifies for pension is provided for in Regulation 26. Regulation 38 provides that "All services which qualifies in full in retiring pension also qualifies for gratuity and on the same condition. Regulations contained three provisions namely, 3, 4 and 16 which are reproduced. Regulation 3 provides for reduction of pension or gratuity if the service has not been satisfactory. It is not the case of the Appellant that the Respondent's service was not satisfactory. Hence no reduction of pension or gratuity under Regulation 3 could have been ordered. Regulation 4, 16
(a) are also analyzed pertaining to this case. Rule 26 reveals that resignation other than voluntary retirement or compulsory retirement or resignation is to facilitate the employee to join other department or service. Under such circumstances, the previous service will not be forfeited but if the resignation has been tendered and accepted in normal course, the services rendered by the Applicant shall be forfeited. But the services rendered in the department will be available for terminal or other retiral benefits to the employee. In the present case, the resignation was rendered not to join other departments and his resignation was accepted without any conditions. Otherwise if the Applicant is entitled for any other benefits he cannot be denied merely because of acceptance of his resignation under the garb of provisions of Rule 26 (1) of CCS (Pension) Rule. Accordingly, the first question is decided in favour of the Applicant and against Respondents. The second question is, "whether, the Applicant is entitled to get benefit of reduction of qualifying service from 20 years to 10 years which was made effective from 1-1-1986℃ Applicant herein was not compulsorily retired under Rule 48 nor he was seeking Voluntary Retirement under Rule 48 (a). He sought retirement voluntarily from service after completion of 13 years, 11 months and 8 days of service. The case of J.K.Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Company Ltd. Kanpur v. state of U.P. and others [1990 (4) SCC 27], held that any employee can voluntarily relinquish the job by tendering resignation voluntarily. Further rules that if an employee is not permitted in terms of contract to determine the master and servant relationship, such employment shall be bounded labour. Relevant Paras. 6, 7 and 8 are reproduced for clarity. Bhargawa case (supra) leaves no room to doubt that services of the Applicant rendered before resignation can be taken into consideration for grant of terminal benefit or retiral benefit if the employee would otherwise be entitled for the same. Admittedly the service of the Applicant at the time of his acceptance of his resignation was less than 20 years. No discretion has been exercised to release the eligibility to grant pension to the employee. Hence Court cannot lift the bar contained in statutory rules unless it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Thus this question is decided in favour of Respondents and against the Applicant.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text