Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that resigning from government service without authorization to take up another government position will lead to the loss of both past service credits and pension benefits.

The judgment was rendered in the case of a security officer (the respondent) who resigned from the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in 1998 to join Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). It's noteworthy that the Central Civil Service Pension Rules, 1972 (CCPS Rules) are applicable to government employees appointed before 2003.

The bench, consisting of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Pankaj Mithal, heard an appeal challenging a division bench of the High Court. The division bench of the High Court had provided relief to the respondent by ruling that resignation would not lead to the forfeiture of past service.

By giving reference of Union of India v. Braj Nandan Singh (2005) 8 SCC 325, where held that Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules expressly says that resigning from a government service for another post, without obtaining due permission, would lead to the forfeiture of service.

The Court observed that the respondent had sought permission to apply, but it was not granted. The Court's ruling stated that participating in an interview and accepting a new job without obtaining permission would disqualify him from receiving any pension benefits, in accordance with Rule 26 of the CCPS Rules.

It observed, “In this case, although the respondent did seek permission from his employer to apply for the opening in HAL, such permission was not forthcoming. In the meantime, the respondent applied directly, appeared in the selection process availing leave despite denial of permission, and then took up the new assignment. The circumstances here would show that the present case is squarely covered by sub-rule (2) of Rule 26 of CCS Pension Rules. 

In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the High Court erred in granting relief to the respondent by ordering that his resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service. The reading of the applicable statutory provision does not warrant an interpretation that will enure to the benefit of an incumbent merely because he applies directly when such application is not supported by due permission of the competent authority.”

The current matter revolves around the respondent's request for pension benefits from his previous employer, the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), from which he resigned in 1998 to join Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

Later in 1999, the appellants, who were his employers, observed that the respondent had not followed the appropriate channels or obtained the necessary permission when applying for employment. He had applied directly to HAL in his personal capacity. Consequently, in accordance with the CCPS Rules, he was deemed ineligible for monthly pension, retirement benefits, and service gratuity related to his service in the CISF.

After this, the respondent approached the HC and Court in its order had allowed the pension benefits for the period(1985-1998) served by him observing that he had submitted an application to CISF for permission to apply for an opening in HAL.

Further, the matter approaches to the Supreme Court which held that the respondent had directly applied for the post in the HAL thinking that permission would be given. However, there was no intention by the respondent to hide the fact that he was seeking another job with HAL as a security officer.

Advocate K. Parmeshwar, representing the appellants, argued that the respondent, as a member of a security organization, was obligated to seek permission from the competent authority before applying for a job in another organization. He emphasized that the No Objection Certificate (NOC) was denied to the respondent. Additionally, Advocate K. Parmeshwar asserted that the respondent did not inform his employer about his intention to attend an interview at HAL. Therefore, he contended that Rule 26 of CCPS, 1972 would be applicable, and as a result, the respondent would not be eligible for any pension benefits.

On the Contrary, Advocate Girish Ananthamurthy advocate for respondent argued that he had applied to his Commandant for permission to apply for the job of Security Officer in HAL.

He submitted that the respondent kept his employer in the loop about the application and also informed them of the scheduled viva voce by seeking permission once again to appear in the interview.