After 22-Year Delay, Meghalaya HC Rejects Assam Rifles Rifleman’s Pension Claim, Finding His Own-Request Discharge Forfeited Past Service

The petitioner served in the Assam Rifles from 3 January 1986 until his discharge, effective 30 June 1999, after 13 years, 5 months and 27 days of service.

He alleged that he had not requested discharge and that his signature had been obtained on a typed document under pressure.

The respondents maintained that he had sought premature discharge on compassionate grounds because of his wife’s illness, had acknowledged that he would not receive pensionary benefits, and had not sought to withdraw his request.

The petitioner challenged the refusal of pensionary benefits by communication dated 5 November 2021, asserting that he was entitled to pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

He had received his discharge certificate in 1999 but issued a legal notice only in 2021.

Rule 26(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 provides that resignation from service or a post, unless allowed to be withdrawn by the appointing authority in the public interest, entails forfeiture of past service.

The Court distinguished this consequence from pension eligibility under Rule 49(2), reasoning that the minimum-service provision does not assist an employee whose past service has been forfeited under Rule 26(1).

The Court also applied the principle that unexplained delay and laches may independently defeat a claim for relief.

The respondents referred to Rule 48-A’s 20-year service requirement, but the Court’s decision rested on delay and Rule 26(1).

The Court found that the discharge certificate recorded that the petitioner had been discharged on his own request on extreme compassionate grounds, and that he had issued a certificate acknowledging his request and the absence of entitlement to pensionary benefits.

It also noted that he knew of his discharge in 1999 but did not pursue the matter until 2021, offering no plausible explanation for the delay; this independently warranted dismissal.

Further, the Court treated the discharge request as an act of voluntary resignation.

It held that Rule 26(1) therefore forfeited the petitioner’s past service, making Rule 49(2) inapplicable notwithstanding his service of more than ten years.

It directed that any unpaid amounts due to him from his IRLA and GPF accounts—₹5,656 and ₹53,642 respectively—be paid within 30 days, and left him at liberty to seek any further dues from the respondents in accordance with law.

No costs were awarded.