Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition dismissed

P.O. John (Ex-CRPF Naik) v Union of India and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.24490 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Basant Balaji
Judgment Date
2024-02-29
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is dismissed; the petitioner is not entitled to pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules for resignation.
Final Disposition
Writ petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • P.O. John (Ex-CRPF Naik No. 700351265)

Respondents

  • Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi
  • Directorate General Central Reserve Police Force, Block No. 1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
  • Commandant, 64th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, M Rampur, Kalahandi District, Odisha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • B. Harish Kumar
  • • AnjalY Joseph

Counsels for Respondents

  • • N.S. Daya
  • • Sindhu Shree Hari (CGC)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, P.O. John, served in the Central Reserve Police Force from 15 October 1970 and, after 12 years 5 months of service, resigned on 15 March 1983. He sought pension and pensionary benefits under the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, asserting that an amendment to Rule 49(2) (G.S.R. 928(E) dated 21 December 2012) provides a calculation framework that makes him eligible for pension, and that his 12-plus years of qualifying service should be recognized for pension purposes. The respondents contend that resignation results in forfeiture of past service under Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, and that pension is not admissible on resignation. They point out that Ext. P3 explicitly denied pension, and Ext. P2/Ext. P4 representations were filed long after resignation. The writ petition challenged Ext. P3 and sought mandamus to disburse minimum pension with interest. The court examined the CCS Pension Rules, notably Rule 49(2) (calculation) and Rule 26 (forfeiture on resignation), and relied on Supreme Court decisions including Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar, Raj Kumar v. Union of India, and Union of India v. Madhu E.V. to hold that pensionary benefits are not ordinarily available on resignation, especially where the service period falls short of the qualifying threshold. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed. Exhibits P1–P4 were relied upon to establish the resignation and discharge records.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 17 of CRPF Rules, 1955Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972Rule 49(2) of CCS Pension Rules, 1972CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972G.O. dated 27-12-1995 read with Rule 19 of the BSF RulesRule 19 of the BSF Rules

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Forfeiture of past service on resignation
  • Pensionary benefits are not ordinarily available on resignation under CCS (Pension) Rules
  • Rule 49(2) deals with calculation, not minimum qualifying service

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that he served in CRPF from 15-10-1970 and resigned on 15-03-1983 after 12 years 5 months of service. He challenges Ext. P3’s denial of pension under CCS (Pension) Rules purportedly as amended by Rule 49(2) (GSR 928(E) of 2012), arguing that the amendment provides a pension calculation framework and that 12 years qualifies for pension since Rule 49(2) governs quantification rather than the minimum qualifying service. He asserts the right to pension, and seeks a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P3, a mandamus to disburse minimum pension and pensionary benefits with interest for delayed payment, and costs. He relies on the CCS Pension Rules and the 2012 amendment to argue that resignation does not bar pension entirely if otherwise eligible. He also contends that Exts. P2 and P4 show earlier consideration, and that the law requires non-arbitrary application of pension rules.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the petitioner resigned from CRPF on 15/03/1983 after 12 years 5 months, and resignation triggers forfeiture of past service under Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, resulting in no pension. They argue Rule 49(2) merely prescribes calculation and does not create entitlement for those who resign; the CCS (Pension) Rules do not provide pension for resignations before 20 years of service. They rely on Supreme Court decisions Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar, Raj Kumar v. Union of India, and Union of India v. Madhu E.V. to support the proposition that pensionary benefits are not ordinarily available on resignation. They emphasize that the petition, filed decades after resignation, is not supported by the rule structure and that the 2012 amendment does not alter the fundamental principle of forfeiture on resignation.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Union of India v. Madhu E.V. and Another2012 SCC 474PositiveCited to discuss Rule 49(2) and the scope of pension entitlement; used to frame the view that pensionary benefits are not guaranteed upon resignation and depend on retirement criteria and applicable rules.
Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar—PositiveCited as establishing that pensionary benefits are not ordinarily available on resignation; supports the conclusion of non-entitlement.
Raj Kumar v. Union of India—PositiveCited for the principle that resignation does not automatically qualify for pension under CCS Pension Rules; supports the court’s decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P.O. John (Ex-CRPF Naik) v Union of India and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 24490 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` P.O.JOHN (EX-CRPF NAIK NO. 700351265) AGED 79 YEARS S/O OOMMEN PANNIKUZHYIL HOUSE, NADUVATTOM P.O, PALLIPAD, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 690512 BY ADVS. B.HARISH KUMAR ANJALY JOSEPH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011`** - **`2 THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, BLOCK NO. 1, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003`** - **`3 COMMANDANT 64TH BATTALION, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, M RAMPUR, KALAHABDI DISTRICT, ODISHA, PIN - 934064 BY ADVS N.S.DAYA SINDHU SHREE HARI - CGC`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ``` ``` ON 29.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) No.24490 OF 2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** **(Dated this the 29[th ] day of February, 2024)** The petitioner commenced his service under the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as Lance Naik/Senior Constable on 15/10/1970. As per Ext.P1 in Column No.3, it was stated that he resigned from service on 07/03/1983 though the certificate shows that this is a certificate of discharge. Thereafter the petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation before the Hon’ble Prime Minister for payment of pension as he had 12 and half years of service acting was as acting CRPF (Personal). The said representation considered by the 2[nd] respondent and Ext.P3 letter is issued in the petitioner stating that since the petitioner is having only 12 years of service as per CCS Pension Rules, 1972 is not eligible for pension and other pensionary benefits. Though another representation was filed as Ext.P4, the same has not been taken into consideration. Therefore the petitioner approached this Court with this writ petition for the following prayers: ``` WP(C) No.24490 OF 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` “1. To call for records leading to Exhibit P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent and set aside the same by issuing writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ. 2. To issue a Writ of Mandamus order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to disburse with the minimum pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner with interest for delayed payments in accordance with the CCS Pension Rules. 3. Any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice. 4. To grant the cost of this writ petition (civil).” 2. A statement is filed on behalf of the respondents. The statement clarifies that he has resigned from service at his own will on 15/03/1983 AN after completing 12 years and 5 months of service in CRPF. His resignation tendered was accepted by the competent authority and he was allowed to resign with effect ``` WP(C) No.24490 OF 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` from 15/03/1983 AN under Rule 17 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. As per Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, resignation from a service for a post unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in public interest by the appointing authority entitles forfeiture of past service as such no pension is admissible in the case of resignation of service under the CCS Pension Rules of 1972. The petitioner resigned his service admittedly on 15/03/1983 and the application for payment of pension is filed only in 2020 after lapse of more than 14 years. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Rule 49(2) of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, which substituted vide notification GSR No.928(E), dated 21/12/2012. “In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less that 10 years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of ``` WP(C) No.24490 OF 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to him, subject to a minimum of three thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem and maximum of forty-five thousand rupees per mensem.” 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner since he has more than 12 year of service as per Rule 49 (2) is eligible to get pension. The DSGI appearing for the respondent has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and Others v. Madhu E.V. and Another reported in (2012) 5 SCC 474 and contented his proposition that the Rule 49 of the CCS Rules only prescribes the procedure for calculation and quantification of pension amount and not minimum qualifying service. Paragraph 14 of judgment reads as follows: “14. In view of the decisions of this Court in _Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar_ and _Raj Kumar v. Union of India,_ the legal position that emerges is this: Rule 19 of the BSF Rules does not entitle any pensionary benefits on resignation of its personnel. The ``` WP(C) No.24490 OF 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` pensionary benefits are not ordinarily available on resignation under CCS (Pension) Rules since Rule 26 provides for forfeiture of service on resignation. However, by virtue of G.O. dated 27-12-1995 read with Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, the member of BSF would be entitled to get pensionary benefits if he is otherwise eligible. Such personnel must, therefore, satisfy his eligibility under the CCS (Pension) Rules. The CCS (Pension) Rules do bot provide that a person who has resigned before completing 20 years of service is entitled to the pensionary benefits. Rule 49 only prescribes the procedure for calculation and quantification of pension amount and not the minimum qualifying service.” 5. Rule 49(2) of the CCS Pension rules deals with payment of pensionary benefits. Admittedly petitioner resigned under service. Resignation cannot be treated as retirement. Rule 49 (2) specifies that a person who retired only is eligible for pensionary benefits. Hence petitioner is not entitled to get pensionary benefits. 6. In view of the categoric declaration of law by the ``` 7 ``` ## **`WP(C) No.24490 OF 2023`** Apex Court in the judgment mentioned above, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for the pension. Therefore this writ petition fails and dismissed. Sd/- ``` BASANT BALAJI JUDGE ``` ``` sms ``` ``` WP(C) No.24490 OF 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24490/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE DATED 18/03/1983 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT COMMANDANT Exhibit -P2A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRIME MINISTER DATED 29/09/2020 Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/11/2020 Exhibit P4. A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRIME MINISTER ```