Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

On 11.06.2001, the first respondent informed his inability to grant pension as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. Once again in 2009, the appellant had made an attempt, which was also rejected by the http://www.judis.nic.in first respondent on 19.02.2009. According to the appellant, as per Rule 23(1) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, resignation shall not entail for forfeiture of past service.

5. It is also categorically held that Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules envisages that resignation results in forfeiture of service which disentitles the Government employee to pension.

6. The aggrieved appellant once again reiterates that he is entitled for pension. As mentioned above, the appellant resigned in the year 1993 and the writ petition is filed in the year 2012 after twenty years. First of all, the writ petition is rightly dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. Even otherwise, it has to be seen http://www.judis.nic.in that whether the appellant is entitled for the pensionary benefits when he had voluntarily resigned on medical grounds and also family circumstances.

7. The Division Bench of this Court in R.Balameenva v. Chief Engineer/Personnel Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited and Another reported in 2020 SCC online Mad 8816, has held as follows:

“8.The learned Judge in paragraph 6 of the impugned order has extracted Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, which speaks about the forfeiture of service on resignation and as to the interpretation of the said Rule, he has also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court reported in (2016) 2 LLN 254 [A.I. Agnal Ilangovan v.The Government of Tamil Nadu). Since the said rule is very clear as to the forfeiture of service on resignation, there cannot be any positive order of direction, directing the respondents to violate the statutory rules.

7.To the contrary, Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules categorically states about the forfeiture of service on resignation. The said Rule has been extracted by the learned Single Judge and having perused the same, we do not find any reason to draw a different conclusion from that of the learned Single Judge.