L.PEARLSON vs UNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS

2026:MLHC:1210
Serial No. 01
Supplementary List


HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG

WP(C) No. 435 of 2022


Reserved on: 25.08.2026
Pronounced on: 29.10.2026
Uploaded on: 29.10.2026
Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full Judgment


Ex No. G/2401450 Rifleman (General Duty),
L. Pearlson
S/o Late L. Ningtam,
Vill. & P.Ο.- Sanakeithal,
Dist.- Ukhrul, Manipur,
Presently residing at house No- 24, Milijuli Path, Satgaon,
th
Guwahati, Assam, discharged from service from 24
Assam Rifles C/O 99 APO, Pin – 932024.
…… Petitioner(s)

-Versus-


1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary the
Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi – 110001.

2. Director General of Assam Rifles,
Shillong, Meghalaya – 11.

th
3. The Commandant 24 Assam Rifles,
C/O 99APO PIN-932024.
……. Respondent(s)

Coram:


Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge


i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
1

2026:MLHC:1210
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No

Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. V. Kumar, Adv.
Ms. P. Chettri, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with
Mr. G. Lyngdoh, Adv.



JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. V. Kumar, learned counsel, who has submitted that the
case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Rifleman/GD (General Duty)
on 03.01.1986. In his line of duty, has also been awarded by the Director General
Assam Rifles Commendation Card and Governor Gold Medal in the year 1995
for commendable service.
2. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the year 1999, he was
th
detailed by the Commandant 24 Assam Rifles to perform duty at Intelligence
Section, during which period, one Assistant Manager of Bank of Baroda, who is
a relative of the petitioner was apprehended. However, he was directed to help
in the interrogation which he refused, following which action was threatened to
be taken against him.
3. The learned counsel has further contended that 3 or 4 days after that,
he was called to the main office and his signature was taken on an already typed
paper, and he later came to know that he was soon discharged from service, the
2

2026:MLHC:1210
reason shown reads as… “Discharged from service on own request, on extreme
th
compassionate ground on 30.06.1999 after rending 13 year of service”
4. The fact is that the petitioner never applied for discharge from service
on his own request, and in this regard, he has submitted several representations
with a prayer to reinstate him or to grant him pension/pensionary benefits as he
has rendered more than 13 years of service.
5. A legal notice dated 30.09.2021 on behalf of the petitioner was also
issued upon the respondent authorities with a prayer for pension and pensionary
benefits to be granted to the petitioner under the Central Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1972. A reply to this notice by the concerned authority, issued vide letter
dated 05.11.2021 was also received by the petitioner, wherein, it was reiterated
that since the petitioner was discharged from service on his own request, as per
Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and having rendered
only about 13 years, 5 months and 27 days of service, he is therefore not entitled
to pensionary benefits.
6. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that since the
petitioner has never submitted any letter of resignation, therefore, the provision
of Rule 26(1) CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 will not apply in his case. Even so,
since the petitioner has crossed more than 10 years of service, if he is entitled to
pension and pensionary benefits, then Rule 49(2) of the said CCS (Pension)
3

2026:MLHC:1210
Rules will apply.
7. The learned counsel has further submitted that in the case of the
petitioner, the Office Memorandum dated 11.02.1988 will also be applicable,
since it is found therein, the circumstances under which resignation should be
accepted.
8. The impugned communication by the respondent authority dated
05.11.2021, not being applicable to the petitioner, it is prayed that the same may
be set aside and quashed, submits the learned counsel.
9. In reply, Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Mr. G. Lyngdoh,
learned counsel for the respondent/Union of India has submitted that the fact of
the matter is that the petitioner on his own violation, has sought for premature
discharge from service in the year 1998 on extreme compassionate grounds as
he was facing domestic problems due to the illness of his wife. This request was
th
acknowledged by the Commandant 24 , Assam Rifles on 23.12.1998, where he
was also informed that in the event of his discharge, he will not be eligible for
pensionary benefits. Even the petitioner himself has issued certificate stating that
he fully understands this condition.
10. The learned DSGI has also submitted that in the meantime, the
petitioner has not approached his superior or the authorities for withdrawal of
his application and his discharge was finally approved with effect from
4

2026:MLHC:1210
30.06.1999, this, being published vide 24 Assam Rifles Part-II Order No. 24/99
dated 04.03.1999.
11. It is the further submission of the learned DSGI that at the time of his
discharge from service, the petitioner has served about 13 years or so, and the
Assam Rifles personnel are governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension)
Rules 1972, as such, the petitioner was found ineligible for pension under these
Rules. Rule 48-A of the said Rules requires an employee to have served at least
for 20 years to be eligible for pensionary benefits. Rule 26(1) of the CCS
(Pension) Rules provides that resignation from service, unless it is allowed to be
withdrawn by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service.
Therefore, in this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot sustain his prayer
made in this petition, submits the learned DSGI.
12. This Court having taken into account the respective case of the
parties, the fact that the petitioner was Assam Rifles personnel is not disputed.
The he has served for about 13 years or so, till the time he is said to have been
discharged from service is also not disputed. That his service is also covered by
the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the provisions thereof has
also been admitted by the petitioner.
13. Facts reiterated would show that the petitioner has admitted in his
petition found at para 8 that he came to know of his discharge from service on
5

2026:MLHC:1210
receipt of the discharged book Serial No. 0214 dated 25.05.1999, copy of the
discharged certificate is annexed in the petition as Annexure-2. A perusal of the
said discharge certificate would reveal that the date of discharge has been listed
as 30.06.1999 (AN), the total service rendered by him was 13 years 5 months
and 27 days, again under the caption “Reasons for Discharge – Discharge from
service on own request on extreme compassionate ground.”
14. Under such circumstances, it is assumed that the petitioner is aware
of his discharge from service as far back as in 1999. Being aggrieved by this, the
petitioner has contended that he was illegally discharged from service as he has
never applied for such discharge. Towards this end, the petitioner has caused a
Pleader’s Notice dated 30.09.2021 issued upon the Director General Assam
Rifles, Shillong, stating that his discharge is illegal and that having rendered
more than 13 years’ service, he is therefore entitled to pensionary benefits under
the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.
15. The contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted, the fact being
that apart from the request for discharge from service on extreme compassionate
ground, the petitioner has also issued a certificate dated 23.12.1998 to the extent
that he is fully aware of his request for discharge and that he shall not be entitled
to any pensionary benefits for his service rendered in Assam Rifles. This
certificate was endorsed by the Commandant, one Colonel G. Sikdar.
6

2026:MLHC:1210
16. From the above, it is amply clear that there has been lapses on the
part of the petitioner, inasmuch as, though he was aware of his discharge in the
year 1999, for about 22 years he kept quite and rose up from his slumber only in
the year 2021 when he was issued the said Pleader’s Notice. The action of the
petitioner in this regard, would only demonstrate the fact that he is not keen to
pursue his case, as such, there has been delay and laches on his part. Though the
Court more often than not would condone delay, if reasonably explained,
however, in this case, no such plausible reasons have been given for such delay
in approaching the Court or the appropriate authorities. On this ground alone this
petition is liable to be dismissed.
17. Again, the initial prayer made by the petitioner before the authorities
is for him to be discharged from service on his own request. This can also be
termed as an act of resignation from service. Under such situation, being a
government employee the provision of Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972 would apply. Rule 26(1) reads as follow:
“ 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.”


18. The above-mentioned rules are explicit to be understood that
voluntarily resignation from a post entails forfeiture of all past services and is
therefore not entitled to pensionary benefits. Rule 42(2) on the otherhand, applies
7

2026:MLHC:1210
to employees who are retired under the valid provision of the said rules and who
have completed a minimum service of 10 years. Rule 26(1) placed in
juxtaposition with Rule 49(2), it is apparent that since Rule 26(1) operates as a
bar to future service benefits, therefore, Rule 49(2) would become inapplicable
in such a scenario.
19. The petitioner and his act of voluntary resignation have therefore
created a forfeiture of any claim to pensionary benefits. However, from what has
been enclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, it appears
that the petitioner is due to receive a certain sum of money towards IRLA and
GPF accounts amounting to ₹ 5,656/- and ₹ 53,642/- respectively. If such amount
has not been paid, the same is to be paid to the petitioner within 30 days from
the date of this order. The petitioner, if he is entitled to any further dues, he is at
liberty to approach the respondent authorities for the same in accordance with
law and with the rules applicable.
20. In view of the above, this petition is hereby dismissed and stands
disposed of. No costs.

Judge


8

DARIKORDOR NARY
Digitally signed by:
Signed On: 29-10-2026 17:10:45 IST
Verified