Voluntary Resignation Results In Forfeiture Of Past Service, Employee Not Entitled To Pension Benefits: Gauhati High Court

Background Facts

The employee joined the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as a Constable on August 6, 2000. He served in this capacity for over 12 years. In August 2008, while employee was posted in Guwahati, he began experiencing severe backbone pain. He was admitted to a hospital in Guwahati, where he was diagnosed with a condition referred to as "Low Backache."

As employee's health continued to deteriorate, he was diagnosed with a P3(P) medical condition, which is considered serious and potentially incurable. Frustrated by his worsening health and the impact it had on his ability to perform his duties and take care of his family, employee requested that a Medical Board be constituted to examine his condition. He expressed a desire to be medically retired if his health was deemed to warrant it, as this would allow him to receive retirement benefits, including a pension.

On July 27, 2012, employee submitted a letter to the CRPF authorities. In this letter, he requested the constitution of a Medical Board to evaluate his medical condition. He also stated that if the Medical Board was not constituted, his resignation should be accepted. The resignation was presented as a last resort due to his health issues and personal problems. The CRPF authorities accepted employee's resignation effective from August 4, 2012, without forming a Medical Board to evaluate his condition. As a result, employee was discharged from service but did not receive retirement benefits or a pension because he had not completed the required 20 years of service for pension eligibility.

Aggrieved by the CRPF's decision to accept his resignation without constituting a Medical Board, employee filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court. He sought a direction from the court to the CRPF authorities to constitute a Medical Board to evaluate his condition and allow him to retire on medical grounds so that he could receive his retirement benefits.

The employee contended that his resignation was conditional. He argued that his resignation letter requested the constitution of a Medical Board to examine his medical condition, and only if the Medical Board was not constituted, his resignation should be accepted. The employee argued that the CRPF authorities failed to constitute the Medical Board as requested. He asserted that if the Medical Board had been constituted and he had been examined, he might have been allowed to retire on medical grounds, which would have entitled him to receive retirement benefits.

On the other hand, it was contended by the respondents that employee's resignation was voluntary, unambiguous and not conditional. They contended that employee had voluntarily submitted his resignation letter due to personal reasons and health issues, and it was not contingent upon the constitution of a Medical Board. The respondents contended that a Medical Board had indeed been constituted on 18th May 2012 as part of the Departmental Rehabilitation Board process for assessing employee's medical condition. However, before the Medical Board could finalize its assessment, employee submitted his resignation, which the competent authority accepted. They argued that employee's resignation led to the forfeiture of his past service, as per Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules. Thus, the question of whether he completed 20 years of service was immaterial because the legal consequences of resignation had already taken effect.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the employee had indeed submitted his resignation voluntarily. It was noted that employee's resignation letter included a request for the constitution of a Medical Board, but it also stated that if the Board was not constituted, his resignation should be accepted. This indicated that employee had provided an alternative, which was the acceptance of his resignation. Therefore, the resignation was not deemed conditional in a way that would invalidate its acceptance.

It was further acknowledged by the court that a Medical Board had been constituted by the respondent authorities as part of the Departmental Rehabilitation Board process. However, it noted that before the Board could complete its assessment, employee submitted his resignation letter. It was observed by the court that employee had only completed 12 years and 2 months of service at the time of his resignation, falling short of the 20 years required under Rule 26(1) of the Central Civil Services (CCS) Pension Rules, 1972, for pension eligibility.

It was concluded by the court that the resignation, whether considered conditional or not, was voluntarily submitted by employee due to his health and personal circumstances. It was held by the court that according to the law, resignation results in the forfeiture of past service, and therefore, employee was not entitled to pension benefits. It was further held that the acceptance of employee's resignation by the respondent authorities was lawful and did not involve any illegality. The resignation letter was found to be clear, unambiguous, and voluntary, thus meeting the requirements for acceptance.

The decision of the respondent authorities was upheld by the court. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case No. : WP(C)/196/2016

Counsel for the Petitioner : R Gogoi, B Gogoi, Parag J Saikia

Counsel for the Respondent : C.G.C., G Pegu