Supreme Court: Resignation Means No Pension for Government Employees
Supreme Court rules that government employees who resign forfeit past service and pension benefits.
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that government employees who resign from service are not entitled to pensionary benefits, as resignation results in the forfeiture of past service under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The verdict was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, which upheld the denial of pension to the legal heirs of a deceased Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) employee.
The case involved a DTC conductor appointed in 1985, who resigned from service in 2014 after nearly 30 years of continuous service. Although the employee later attempted to withdraw his resignation, the competent authority rejected the request, rendering the resignation final. After his death, his legal heirs sought pensionary benefits, arguing that the resignation should be treated as voluntary retirement.
Rejecting this claim, the Supreme Court clearly distinguished between resignation and voluntary retirement, calling them “distinct concepts” under service law. The Court observed that Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules explicitly states that resignation leads to forfeiture of entire past service, thereby disqualifying the employee from pension eligibility.
Also Read: Tamil Nadu Government Issues Strict Pay Warning Ahead of One-Day Employee Strike
The Bench noted that while the employee’s resignation was accepted in September 2014, his withdrawal request was rejected in April 2015, leaving no ambiguity about his status. The Court also recalled that the Central Administrative Tribunal and later the Delhi High Court had upheld the denial of pension, though provident fund benefits were allowed.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that while pensionary benefits cannot be granted, the legal heirs are entitled to gratuity and leave encashment. The Court reaffirmed that pension rights do not automatically arise from long service unless the exit from service strictly follows voluntary retirement provisions.
Citing its earlier judgment in BSES Yamuna Power Limited v. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma (2020), the Court reiterated that Rule 48-A, which permits pension after 20 years of service, applies only to voluntary retirement and requires a mandatory three-month prior notice. In the absence of such notice, the act remains a resignation—effectively barring pension entitlement.
Also Read: Tamil Nadu Class 12 Boy Beaten to Death by 14 Juniors Inside Government School
