CHENNAI: A full bench of the Madras High Court has ruled that “resignation” from government service or post, even on medical or health grounds under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, entails forfeiture of past service and therefore, such employees who have resigned from service cannot claim pension.
“Resignation from a service or post as per Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, entails forfeiture of past service. Therefore, resignation from service even on medical or health grounds entails forfeiture of past service. The grounds on which resignation is sought are immaterial and resignation shall only mean forfeiture of past service,” the bench comprising justices S M Subramaniam, D Bharatha Chakravarthy and C Kumarappan said in a recent judgment.
A reference was made to the bench to clarify on the eligibility for pension under Rule 23.
The bench said there is a “valid distinction” between “resignation” and “voluntary retirement” as held by the SC in the Senior Divisional Manager, LIC and Others Vs Shree Lal Meena case.
“Therefore, resignation from service cannot be treated as voluntary retirement,” the bench said in the order and upheld the division bench order of the Madras HC in the A I Agnel Ilangovan Vs Government of Tamil Nadu, wherein the plea of an employee for pension benefits after resigning was rejected.
Stating that resignation is a condition of service with statutorily recognised procedure, the bench said the employees cannot turn around and claim pension benefits on medical grounds after agreeing to the consequences of resignation.
It pointed out there are separate provisions available under the Pension Rules for medical grounds, and also Rule 56 (3) of Fundamental Rules deals exclusively with voluntary retirement. Hence, a new ground cannot be constructed by courts nor can it legislate a provision.
Medical grounds are not an element of Rule 23, the bench said.