In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court is set to scrutinize the contentious issue of whether the relinquishment of a prior position by a Central Government employee can result in the forfeiture of service benefits, as outlined in the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules.

The case in question involves a petitioner who voluntarily stepped down from the role of Junior Clerk in the Court of Munsif, Daspalla. This decision was prompted by the petitioner securing another position. Following success in the Clerk Grade Examination for the Office of Accountant General (A & E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar, the petitioner formally resigned from the Junior Clerk position.

The petitioner's plea to consider their tenure as a junior clerk eligible for pension benefits faced initial rejection, leading to a legal battle at both the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court. Eventually, the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner after deeming the initial rejection lacking clear and specific rationale.

The core contention in the Supreme Court revolves around the appellants' argument, citing the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, that the petitioner's resignation nullifies their previous service as qualifying service for associated benefits.

Challenging the ruling, the High Court emphasized the need for a clear rationale in dismissing the petitioner's claim and rejected the notion that the resignation could be categorized as a "technical resignation."

The Supreme Court is poised to conduct a comprehensive examination of the presented arguments and evidence to determine whether the petitioner's past service, despite the resignation, can be considered for pension benefits in compliance with the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules. This case holds implications for the interpretation and application of pension rules in similar circumstances, setting a precedent for future disputes.