"‘Resignation" And "Voluntary Retirement" Inherently Different For Seeking Pension: Madras High Court
Resignation irrespective of reason entails forfeiture of past service; Full Bench of the Court distinguishes resignation from voluntary retirement under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978
The Madras High Court (Full Bench) has held that resignation from service being inherently different from voluntary retirement, even when tendered on medical or health grounds, results in forfeiture of past service and disentitles an employee from claiming pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
The bench drew a sharp distinction between “resignation” and “voluntary retirement”, reiterating settled Supreme Court jurisprudence that the two operate in entirely different legal spheres. While voluntary retirement is a statutory right that preserves retiral benefits upon fulfilment of qualifying service, resignation is a unilateral severance of the employer-employee relationship that ordinarily leads to forfeiture of service benefits.
Accordingly, a bench comprising Justice S. M. Subramaniam, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, and Justice C. Kumarappan after considering the settled principle on the facts observed, “…we come to the irresistible conclusion that resignation of employee entails forfeiture of service and that a clear distinction can be drawn between resignation and voluntary retirement. Both are disparate in terms of its operation and consequence, thereby, unlikely to hold an equivalent character”.
“Based on the application of literal rule of interpretation and a combined reading of the above-mentioned judgments, it is also crystal clear that resignation on medical grounds cannot be touted to be different from a resignation under Rule 23, which in ordinary reading entails forfeiture of service. Resignation means forfeiture of past service and the Rule cannot be tampered with in the absence of any ambiguity. There are separate and distinct provisions available under the Pension Rules for medical grounds and also Rule 56(3) of Fundamental Rules deals exclusively with voluntary retirement. Hence, a new ground cannot be constructed by Courts nor can it legislate a provision”, the bench further observed.
Advocate S. Nagashyla appeared for the petitioner and K.H. Ravikumar, Government Advocate appeared for the respondent.
In the present matter the dispute was a result of conflicting division bench decisions on whether an employee who resigns on medical grounds could still claim pensionary benefits by treating such resignation as akin to voluntary retirement.
The Court examined Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which expressly provides that resignation from service entails forfeiture of past service, subject only to a narrow exception where resignation is tendered with proper permission to take up another qualifying government appointment.
Therefore, answering the reference, the Court held that Rule 23 is clear, unambiguous, and does not carve out any exception for resignation on medical grounds.
The Court noted that pension on medical grounds is separately dealt with under other provisions, such as invalid pension, and cannot be read into Rule 23 by interpretative exercise.
The bench thus, overruled an earlier division bench view to the contrary, holding that the ground on which resignation is tendered whether medical, personal, or otherwise, is immaterial for the purposes of Rule 23. Once an employee resigns, past service stands forfeited, and such resignation cannot later be recharacterised as voluntary retirement to claim pension.
The court ultimately upheld the view that courts must exercise restraint in statutory interpretation and cannot legislate under the guise of equity or hardship, particularly in service jurisprudence where rights and consequences are governed strictly by rules.
Cause Title: D. Kaliyamoorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu WP No. 39583 of 2015
Appearances:
Petitioner: S. Nagashyla, Advocate.
Respondent: K.H. Ravikumar, Advocate.