Kerala High Court
A.A. Jose vs The Union Of India on 23 February, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939
WP(C).No. 27111 of 2017 (L)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------------
A.A. JOSE,
ARACKAL HOUSE, KOZHIKUNNU,
MULANKUNNATHUKAVU P.O., KERALA STATE,
PIN-680 581, NOW RESIDING AT ARACKAL HOUSE,
P.O.CHOOLISSERY, THRISSUR, KERALA STATE,
PIN-680 541.
BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ
RESPONDENT(S):
------------------------
1. THE UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI.110 001.
2. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, (WELFARE)
DIRECTORATE GENERAL, C.R.P.F.,
CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI.110 003.
3. ADDITIONAL DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
GROUP CENTER, C.R.P.F., NAGPUR.440 019.
R1-R3 BY ADV. SMT.O.M.SHALINA, CGC
BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 28-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
PBS
WP(C).No. 27111 of 2017 (L)
---------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF DISCHARGE
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 05.07.2012.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE O.P.TICKET ISSUED BY THE
MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHEST HOSPITAL DATED 23.02.2012.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TREATMENT SUMMARY OF THE
PETITIONER'S SON MR.STANELY ISSUED BY THE ASST.
PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY,MEDICAL COLLEGE, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEARING NO.W.V.-53/2014-CWWA(GR-I) DATED
14.03.2014.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
---------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
PBS
P.V.ASHA, J.
W.P.(C) No.27111 of 2017
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner who resigned from Central Reserve Police Force (`CRPF' for short) while working as a Constable, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 order by which his request for pensionary benefits were rejected on the ground that a government servant who resigned from service is not entitled to any terminal benefits. Alternatively he seeks a direction to treat his resignation as voluntary retirement.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the CRPF as a Constable on 18.10.1968 and tendered resignation, in order to look after his father. He was discharged from service on 31.10.1982, as per Ext P1 order, when he had served CRPF for a period of 14 years and 13 days. Thereafter his wife became ill and is undergoing treatment for cancer. His son became mentally ill. Therefore petitioner is finding it difficult to meet the expenditure towards their medicine. He therefore submitted Ext.P4 representation to the Home Minister seeking financial assistance or compassionate pension. That representation was rejected by 2nd respondent as per Ext.P5 letter dated 14.03.2014, informing the petitioner that he is not entitled to W.P.(C) No.27111/17 :2: any terminal benefits since he resigned from service. According to petitioner the rejection of his request is arbitrary. He could not prosecute his claims in time, since he was working as a Driver in Chennai and was running from pillar to pillar in order to meet the medical expenses.
3. Petitioner claims that he is entitled to pensionary benefits as he has completed more than 10 years of service and became eligible for pension as per the provisions in Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. Therefore the denial of pension and other benefits to him when he had served the CRPF for more than 14 years is illegal. According to him Rule 48 or 49 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 do not have any relevance and are not applicable in his case and there is no order forfeiting his pensionary benefits.
4. A statement is filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that petitioner was discharged from CRPF on 31.10.1982 based on his notice of resignation tendered on 31.07.1982, stating that there was nobody to look after his ailing father at home. A person who resign from service forfeits his past service, as provided under Rule 26 (1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, unless the resignation is allowed to be withdrawn in public interest. The Government servant would not be entitled to any pension or gratuity or terminal benefits. Rule 48 and 49 W.P.(C) No.27111/17 :3: of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 are applicable only in a case where the government servant retires from service after fulfilling all the formalities, in accordance with CCS (Pension) Rule, 1972. Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, cannot be applied in the case of petitioner who tendered resignation and got discharged from service at his own interest and since he did not retire from service. None of the provisions in CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 helps the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the petitioner's claim after 35 years of his discharge from service is hopelessly belated and is not liable to be entertained.
5. I heard Sri.N.Reghuraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. O.M. Shalina, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.
6. Pension and pensionary benefits to the members of the CRPF are governed by the provisions contained in the CCS (Pension) Rules. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he was discharged from service on resignation, on his own request. Rule 26 of CCS(Pension ) Rules provides that resignation entails forfeiture of past service, as can be seen from the provision itself which reads as follows:
"26. Forfeiture of service on resignation.--(1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service.
(2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the W.P.(C) No.27111/17 :4: Government where service qualifies."
7. The reason stated in this case for tendering resignation is to look after his father. Therefore as soon as the petitioner was discharged from service, he entailed forfeiture of past service. Even though petitioner had rendered more than 14 years service, there is no provision in the CCS (Pension) Rules which allows pension and pensionary benefits to those who got discharged from service on resignation. Mere completion of service for more than 10 years service will not be of any help to the petitioner, as pension and other terminal benefits are admissible only to those who 'retired from service.
8. A reading of Rule 49(2) will make it clear that pension is admissible only in a case where the member of the force/Government servant 'retires' from service. There was no such 'retirement' in the case of petitioner. Resignation can never be a retirement. Discharge on one's request also is not retirement, unless it is a voluntary retirement as provided in the rules.
9. The question relating to the eligibility of pension to persons who resigned from service was considered by the Apex Court in the judgments in Union of India and Ors. v. Braj Nandan Singh [2005 KHC 1887] : [(2005) 8 SCC 325] and in Union of India & Ors. v. Madhu.E.V & Anr. (2012) 5 SCC 474: 2012(2)KLT 558, W.P.(C) No.27111/17 :5: where the Apex Court after elaborately considering various provisions contained in Rules 5, 14, 26, 35,36, 48, 48A and 49(2)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, held that the CCS (Pension) Rules do not provide that a person who has resigned before completing 20 years of service is entitled to the pensionary benefits. It was also held that Rule 49 only prescribes the procedure for calculation and quantification of pension amount and not the minimum qualifying service.
10. In the judgment in Biju R V Assam Rifles : 2016(5)KHC 50, I have also rejected a similar claim raised by an ex-member of Assam Rifles, another paramilitary force, who got discharged from service on his own request on personal reasons, following the judgments (supra).
I find that the case of the petitioner, who got discharged from service after tendering resignation, saying that there is nobody to look after his father is also covered by the judgments supra. The petitioner is therefore not entitled to any benefit towards the service rendered by him, in CRPF, once he got discharged from service on his own request. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA JUDGE rkc