Case Title: ASHOK KUMAR DABAS (DEAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS) VERSUS DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, while denying the pensionary benefits to the deceased employee’s legal heirs, who have resigned from the services of Delhi Transport Corporation after nearly 30 years in service. Observed that resignation from the service forfeits the past services as per the Central Civil Service Pension Rules,
The Appellants-deceased employee’s legal heirs have argued that the letter of resignation from the service sent by the Appellant to the Respondent should be literally construed as voluntary retirement, not resignation per se, entitling them to the pensionary benefits. Rejecting this argument, the judgment authored by Justice Bindal held that the resignation and voluntary retirement from the service are distinct concepts. Upon resigning, the entire past services rendered by the employee forfeit, making him ineligible to claim pension.
The Appellant was appointed as a conductor with the Respondent in 1985. After working for nearly 30 years, he resigned from the service, and his resignation was accepted. Although the Appellant tried to withdraw the resignation, but remained unsuccessful, making his resignation final. Aggrieved by the Respondent’s decision to deny retirement benefits such as pension, gratuity, and leave encashment, the Appellant moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, which upheld the Respondent’s decision denying him the retirement benefits except the provident fund.
Being aggrieved by the Delhi High Court’s decision to uphold the CAT’s decision, the Appellant appeals to the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the Appellant claimed that the benefits of gratuity, pension, and leave encashment was wrongly denied to him.
Partly allowing the Appeal, the Court held that the Appellants were entitled to the benefit of gratuity and leave encashment but upheld the impugned order regarding the denial of the pensionary benefits.
Reference was made to the case of BSES Yamuna Power Limited v. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma and another, (2020) 3 SCC 346, where it was also held that an employee who has resigned from service is not entitled to pensionary benefits available to those who ‘voluntary retired’.
The Court cited Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (Pension Rule), being applicable to the Respondent-DTC, which says resignation from service entails forfeiture of the entire past service.
The Court also rejected the Appellant’s contention that completing nearly 30 years of service entitled him to a pension under Rule 48-A of the Pension Rules. It held that although the Appellant had indeed served for more than 20 years, he could not claim pensionary benefits under Rule 48-A because he had resigned from service. Rule 48-A requires an employee to give at least three months’ prior notice to seek voluntary retirement; only then does the entitlement to pension arise.
The Court emphasised the distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement while voluntary retirement mandates prior notice of three months, the absence of such notice renders the act a resignation, not retirement, and therefore disentitles the employee from pensionary benefits.
