Resignation forfeits past service for pension unless covered by Rule 26(2)’s governmental-appointment exception.

The applicant, a retired Postal Assistant, claimed that he was appointed in the Postal Department on 04.01.1983 on a regular and permanent post and that variations in his name in departmental records referred to the same person.

He submitted his resignation on 24.12.1992 after allegedly completing 9 years, 11 months and 20 days of service, and contended that, after counting admissible periods, his qualifying service exceeded ten years.

He further asserted that the resignation was neither accepted nor communicated to him and sought pension, gratuity, provident fund and other retiral benefits.

The Department rejected his claim on 02.11.2021, stating that he had not completed ten years of qualifying service and that his service records were unavailable as they had been preserved only for three years after resignation or retirement.

The respondents contended that there was no evidence of the applicant’s continuation in service after 24.12.1992 or of any resignation for the purpose of taking up another Government appointment with proper permission.

The Tribunal had earlier condoned the delay in filing the Original Application on 15.04.2025.

1. Whether the applicant established entitlement to pensionary benefits on the basis of service rendered before his resignation dated 24.12.1992, including whether he had completed the requisite qualifying service.

2. Whether the applicant’s resignation was covered by the exception under Rule 26(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, so that his past service would not be forfeited.

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to gratuity, provident fund or other retiral dues in the absence of available service records and proof of a quantified amount payable.

The Tribunal applied Rule 26(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, under which resignation from service ordinarily entails forfeiture of past service; Rule 26(2) creates an exception where the resignation is submitted, with proper permission, to take up another qualifying Government appointment.

The Tribunal relied on Union of India & Ors. v. Braj Nandan Singh, (2005) 8 SCC 325, holding that Rule 26(1) is mandatory, Rule 26(2) is an exception, and forfeited service cannot be counted towards qualifying service for pension.

It also noted the reiteration of this principle in Ashok Kumar Dabas (Dead through Legal Heirs) v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2025 INSC 1404.

Pension entitlement was considered subject to the requisite qualifying service under the applicable pension rules, while gratuity was governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and applicable service rules.

The Tribunal found that, although the applicant disputed acceptance of his resignation, there was no material showing that he continued in Government service after 24.12.1992.

Even assuming that the resignation had been accepted and became effective, the applicant produced no pleading or evidence that it was tendered to take up another Government appointment with proper permission.

Accordingly, the exception in Rule 26(2) was not attracted and the consequence under Rule 26(1)—forfeiture of past service—would follow.

The variations in the applicant’s name did not establish continuation in qualifying service, and the unavailability or weeding out of old records could not, by itself, prove entitlement to pension.

The applicant also failed to produce sufficient evidence establishing any specific entitlement or quantified amount towards provident fund, gratuity or other retiral dues.

The order dated 02.11.2021 rejecting his pension claim for want of requisite qualifying service was upheld.

The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs; all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.