Employee who resigned cannot ask for pension: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court rejected the plea of a CRPF constable and stated that a resigned employee cannot ask for pension. The court called it, "a voluntary act of the employee," that "leads to termination of the employer-employee relationship."

The employee, constable Raj Kumar, moved the court 17 years after he resigned from his service as a cook after working for more than 10 years.

"Resignation is a voluntary act of the employee. Once accepted, it leads to termination of the employer-employee relationship. Resignation, therefore, has its own consequences and cannot be equated to and is not similar to punishments imposed on the government servant," the court said in its order.

Kumar challenged Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 stating that it violates the articles of Indian Constitution granting equality.

According to the rule, resignation from service or post entails forfeiture of past service. However, the plea contended that the forfeiture stipulation violates Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution which grants equality to citizens.

Kumar had joined the services on May 22, 1989, but resigned from his services and was discharged on March 31, 2000. According to him, he was entitled to a grant of pension gratuity or both at the rate not less than two-thirds and not more than a full pension.

"Compulsory retirement is a penalty and therefore, a government servant who is penalised does not lose and cannot be denied pension or gratuity and the same have to be paid at least not two-thirds (of the full pension)" the plea said.

The court held that there are distinctions between the terms resignation, retirement on superannuation, voluntary retirement etc.

"Resignations are entirely distinct and separate. The government neither compels nor forces the employee to leave...We do not think the petitioner can claim the discrimination or violation of Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 of the Constitution asserting that where punishment of compulsory retirement is imposed, the employee is entitled to pension which would be no less than two-thirds," the court said.

A bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Navin Chawla noted that "in cases of dismissal or removal unless otherwise stipulated, an employee would lose his right to pension and retirement benefits".

The court also said the petitioner had himself terminated the relationship between the employee and employer.

"The representation made by the petitioner was rejected which records and also notices the periods of unauthorised absence from duty. The penalty of confinement for 20 days to Quarter Guard and forfeiture of pay and allowances of a certain period was imposed," the court said.