Vimla Singh Ex Pgt History vs Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 18.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 25.02.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 25.02.2026
+ W.P.(C) 14081/2023
VIMLA SINGH EX PGT HISTORY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. P. V. Singh and Mr. Ashok
Kumar Panigrahi, Adv.
versus
COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA
SANGHATHAN .....Respondent
Through: Mr. S. Rajappa, Mr.R.
Gowrishankar and Ms. G.
Dhivyasri, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks issuance
of a writ of certiorari for quashing the Impugned Orders dated
30.05.2023 and 17.07.2023 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned
Orders‟] passed in O.A. No.81/2018 and R.A. No.97/2023,
respectively, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟],
whereby her claim for gratuity came to be rejected. The Petitioner
further challenges the correctness of the Tribunal‟s view in declining
to examine the validity of Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1972 [hereinafter referred to as „CCSP Rules‟],
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:04:38
W.P.(C) 14081/2023 Page 1 of 10

which, according to her, was erroneously treated as determinative of
her entitlement.
2. The solitary issue which arises for consideration is whether the
Petitioner, having resigned from service, is entitled to gratuity under
the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 [hereinafter referred to as „the PG
Act‟], or whether her claim stands defeated by virtue of Rule 26 of the
CCSP Rules, which provides for forfeiture of past service upon
resignation.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to briefly
advert to the relevant facts.
4. The Petitioner was appointed as Post Graduate Teacher
(History) in a school run by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan
[hereinafter referred to as „KVS‟] on 09.07.1995. She continued to
serve in the said capacity without interruption. It is not in dispute that
the Petitioner rendered service from 09.07.1995 till 18.08.2008. On
18.08.2008, she tendered her resignation. According to the Petitioner,
the resignation was compelled by chronic back pain and prolonged ill
health, which made it difficult for her to continue in service.
5. The resignation was accepted by the Respondent on 23.04.2009
with effect from 18.08.2008. Consequently, the Petitioner completed
13 years and 1 month of qualifying service.
6. At the time of entering service, the Petitioner had opted for the
GPF-cum-pension scheme. The service conditions of employees of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:04:38
W.P.(C) 14081/2023 Page 2 of 10

Respondent were regulated by its bye-laws, and the Respondent had
adopted the provisions of the CCSP Rules.
7. After acceptance of her resignation, the Petitioner sought
release of retiral benefits, including gratuity and pension. The
Respondent declined the same on the ground that resignation entails
forfeiture of past service in terms of Bye-law No.26, which is pari
materia to Rule 26 of the CCSP Rules.
8. Aggrieved by the denial of gratuity, the Petitioner approached
the Controlling Authority under the PG Act. By order dated
05.09.2012, the Controlling Authority directed payment of gratuity to
the Petitioner, placing reliance upon the law laid down by the
Supreme Court that any provision inconsistent with Section 4 of the
PG Act would be inoperative.
9. The Respondent challenged the said order by filing W.P.(C)
No.2771/2015 before this Court and obtained an interim stay against
the recovery of the gratuity amount. In the said proceedings, the
Respondent reiterated its stand that on account of resignation, the
Petitioner was not entitled to gratuity or pension. The said Writ
Petition is pending before this Court.
10. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.11329/2016 before
the Division Bench of this Court, inter alia, challenging the validity of
Bye-law No.26. By order dated 14.12.2017, the said Writ Petition was
permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to approach the Tribunal in
respect of her claim for pension.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:04:38
W.P.(C) 14081/2023 Page 3 of 10

11. Pursuant to the liberty so granted, the Petitioner filed O.A.
No.81/2018 before the Tribunal. In the said OA, she questioned the
validity of Bye-law No.26 and sought the grant of pension and
consequential benefits. The Tribunal vide Impugned Order dated
30.05.2023, dismissed O.A. No.81/2018. The Tribunal held that in
view of Rule 26 of the CCSP Rules, resignation results in forfeiture of
past service and, therefore, the Petitioner was not entitled to
pensionary benefits.
12. The Petitioner thereafter filed R.A. No.97/2023, contending that
the Tribunal had proceeded on an erroneous factual premise, as she
had challenged the Bye-law of the KVS and not Rule 26 of the CCSP
Rules. The Review Application was dismissed vide Impugned Order
dated 17.07.2023.
13. It is in these circumstances that the present Writ Petition has
been filed, assailing the Impugned Orders dated 30.05.2023 and
17.07.2023 passed by the Tribunal.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
14. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and, with their able
assistance, perused the paperbook.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits as under:
i. That Section 4 of the PG Act mandates payment of gratuity to
an employee who has rendered continuous service for not less than
five years, even in cases of resignation, and the Petitioner, having
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:04:38
W.P.(C) 14081/2023 Page 4 of 10

completed more than 13 years of service, squarely falls within its
ambit.
ii. That the Respondent, being a Society registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860, is governed by the PG Act, and its
bye-laws cannot defeat statutory rights conferred by parliamentary
legislation.
iii. That the provisions of the CCSP Rules cannot override an Act
of Parliament. It is contended that Rule 26 of the CCSP Rules, insofar
as it provides for forfeiture of past service upon resignation, is
inconsistent with Section 4 of the PG Act and, therefore, cannot be
made applicable to the employees of the Respondent-Society.
iv. That Rule 26 of the CCSP Rules has the effect of divesting an
employee of accrued and vested rights upon completion of qualifying
service and such deprivation is impermissible in law. In support of
this submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the
Five-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Chairman, Railway
1
Board & Ors. v. C.R Rangadhamaiah & Ors.
16. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
submits as under:
i. That at the time of entering service, the Petitioner accepted the
applicability of the CCSP Rules and, therefore, is bound by Rule 26
thereof, which clearly stipulates forfeiture of past service upon
resignation.

1
(1996) 6 SCC 623
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:04:38
W.P.(C) 14081/2023 Page 5 of 10

ii. That the PG Act is not applicable in the facts of the present
case, and the Tribunal has rightly relied upon Rule 26 of the CCSP
Rules while declining relief.
iii. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in
2
Union of India & Ors. v. Braj Nandan Singh and N. Manoharan,
3
etc. v. The Administrative Officer & Anr.
17. No other submissions have been made by the learned Counsel
representing the parties.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
18. The principal question which arises for determination is
whether the Petitioner is entitled to invoke the provisions of the PG
Act.
19. For applicability of payment under the PG Act, the Petitioner
must first establish that she falls within the definition of “employee”
as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. The unamended and
amended definitions of Section 2(e) read as under:
Post Amendment
Pre-Amendment
“employee” means any person
(other than an apprentice)
employed on wages, in any
establishment, factory, mine,
oilfield, plantation, port,
railway company or shop to do
any skilled, semi-skilled, or
unskilled, manual, supervisory,
technical or clerical work,
whether the terms of such
“employee” means any person (other
than an apprentice) who is employed
for wages, whether the term such
employment are express or implied, in
any; kind of work, manual or
otherwise, in or in connection with the
work of a factory, mine, oilfield,
plantation port, railway company,
shop or other establishment to which
this Act applies, but does not include

2
(2005) 8 SCC 325
3
2026 INSC 143
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:04:38
W.P.(C) 14081/2023 Page 6 of 10

employment are express or
implied, and whether or not
such person is employed in a
managerial or administrative
capacity, but does• not include
any such person who holds a
post under the Central
Government or a State
Government and is governed
by any other Act or by any
rules providing for payment of
gratuity.”
any such person who holds a post
under the Central Government or a
State Government and is governed by
any other Act or by any rules
providing for payment of gratuity.”
20. A careful reading of Section 2(e) of the PG Act shows that the
exclusion clause is structured in two parts. It excludes a person who:
i. holds a post under the Central Government or a State
Government; and
ii. is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for
payment of gratuity.
The legislative intent is clear that where gratuity is regulated by a
distinct statutory or rule-based framework applicable to such an
employee, the PG Act would not operate. The exclusion is substantive
and not merely procedural.
21. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the service
conditions of the Petitioner were governed by the CCSP Rules as
adopted by the Respondent-Society. The Petitioner, at the time of
entering service, opted for the GPF-cum-pension scheme and accepted
applicability of the said Rules. The entitlement to pension and gratuity
thus flowed from the CCSP Rules and not independently under the PG
Act.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:04:38
W.P.(C) 14081/2023 Page 7 of 10

22. Though the Respondent is a Society registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860, its service conditions are wholly
regulated by the CCSP Rules as adopted. Gratuity is specifically
provided for within that statutory framework. Therefore, the Petitioner
is an employee governed by rules providing for payment of gratuity
within the meaning of the exclusion clause contained in Section 2(e)
of the PG Act. Once such statutory rules occupy the field, the
employee cannot simultaneously invoke a parallel statutory regime
under the PG Act.
23. Further, in N. Manoharan v. Administrative Officer (supra) ,
the Supreme Court has authoritatively considered the scope of the
definition of “employee” under Section 2(e) of the PG Act and
clarified that where an employee is governed by statutory rules
providing for gratuity, such an employee would stand excluded from
the ambit of the PG Act. The ratio of the said judgment squarely
applies to the present case.
24. In this context, it is also apposite to reproduce Section 14 of the
PG Act:
“ 14. Act to override other enactments, etc. —The provisions of this
Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other
than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by
virtue of any enactment other than this Act.”
25. Section 14 gives overriding effect to the PG Act in case of
inconsistency. However, the applicability of Section 14 presupposes
that the employee falls within the ambit of the PG Act. The overriding
clause operates only where the Act otherwise applies. Where an
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:04:38
W.P.(C) 14081/2023 Page 8 of 10

employee stands excluded from the definition under Section 2(e) of
the PG Act, the question of invoking Section 14 does not arise. In the
present case, once it is held that the Petitioner is governed by statutory
rules providing for gratuity and therefore does not fall within the
definition of “employee” under Section 2(e), the PG Act itself has no
application. Consequently, the issue of inconsistency between Rule 26
of the CCSP Rules and Section 4 of the PG Act does not survive.
26. Moreover, the Supreme Court in Braj Nandan Singh (supra)
has examined Rule 26 of the CCSP Rules and held that the language
of the Rule is mandatory, clear and unambiguous. Upon resignation,
past service stands forfeited and no qualifying service survives for the
purpose of pensionary benefits. The effect of resignation, therefore, is
automatic and leaves no scope for retaining benefits linked to
qualifying service.
27. In the present case, the Petitioner resigned after rendering 13
years and 1 month of service. However, once resignation is accepted,
Rule 26 of the CCSP Rules operates and the past service stands
forfeited. The consequence flows directly from the statutory rule
which governed her service conditions from inception.
28. It may also be noted that the reliance placed upon the judgment
by the Five-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Chairman,
Railway Board (supra) is misplaced. In that case, the Supreme Court
was concerned with retrospective amendments to service rules
affecting vested or accrued rights of the government employees. In the
present case, there is no retrospective amendment. Rule 26 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:04:38
W.P.(C) 14081/2023 Page 9 of 10

CCSP Rules existed at the time of appointment and resignation. The
forfeiture is not the result of any subsequent legislative change but
flows from an existing statutory rule.
29. Viewed cumulatively, the challenge to Rule 26 of the CCSP
Rules lacks merit. The validity of the Rule has been questioned solely
on the premise that it is contrary to the PG Act. Once it is held that the
PG Act is not applicable to the Petitioner by virtue of Section 2(e), the
foundation of the challenge disappears.
CONCLUSION:
30. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the conclusion is
inevitable. The Tribunal committed no error in applying Rule 26 of
the CCSP Rules and in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner.
31. Accordingly, the Impugned Orders are upheld.
32. The present Petition is dismissed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
FEBRUARY 25, 2026
s.godara/shah
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:04:38
W.P.(C) 14081/2023 Page 10 of 10