Union of India represented by Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and The Admiral Superintendent Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam v. V.K. Samu S/o Late V G Kozhu Kunju

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **OP (CAT).No.282 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 235/2018 DATED 19-12-2018 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI - 110 001 2 THE ADMIRAL SUPERINTENDENT NAVAL DOCKYARD, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 014 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA** **RESPONDENT/S:** **V.K.SAMU S/O LATE V G KOZHU KUNJU, VELIYAVEETTIL, CHARUMMOOD PO, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT, PIN - 690 505** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SMT.MARY BENJAMIN** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE** **FOLLOWING:** O.P.(CAT) No.282 of 2019 -2- ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 15[th] day of November 2019 ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** Whether the rule dis-entitling pension to an employee on resignation is valid and is the claim raised by the respondent, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, barred by reason of delay are the questions arising in this O.P filed by the official respondents. The applicant claimed pension for the 18 years he had served in the Naval Dockyard Apprentice School, Vishakapattanam. The Tribunal, based on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in _**Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India [(2016) 13 SCC 797]**_ , found that the inapplicability of pension scheme to employees who had resigned was invalid. The Tribunal quoted the entire decision aforesaid to allow O.P.(CAT) No.282 of 2019 -3- the O.A declaring the applicant entitled to pension for the period he served. We immediately notice that the decision relied on by the Tribunal, has been overruled by a larger Bench in _**Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. Sree Lal Meena [92019)**_ _**4 SCC 479].**_ There need be no discussion on this aspect. 2. The learned ASG specifically argues that there was a resignation and acceptance as is seen from Annexures A4 and A5, way back in 1996 and the applicant had approached the Tribunal for retirement benefits after many years, in the year 2017 by the first O.A. numbered as O.A.No.180/2017. It is specifically pointed out from Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, that an employee on resignation forfeits his right to pension. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submits that there was no resignation O.P.(CAT) No.282 of 2019 -4- submitted by the applicant voluntarily. He had in fact been medically unfit and was on leave and he was arrested by the Police and produced before his Controlling Authority, upon which, he was forced to give Annexure A4 resignation. It is also pointed out that the resignation letter is a typed letter not in his hand and that he had specifically asked for disbursement of the service benefits to his wife. This indicates that if at all he is found to have resigned voluntarily, it was on condition of payment of all service benefits. It is asserted that Annexure A5 though is addressed to the applicant, has never been served on him. Further, it is urged that the earlier order of the Tribunal is binding on the administration and the findings with respect to his right to get pensionary benefits cannot be easily wished away. The learned Counsel seeks to sustain the order of the Tribunal, which granted him pensionary benefits. O.P.(CAT) No.282 of 2019 -5- 4. At the outset, we notice the averments in the original application, which is to the effect that the applicant while continuing on medical leave, was summoned to the office through Police officials and was compelled to resign his job. It is also stated that “obeying the respondents, he resigned his job in 1995, but he has not been awarded pension till date” (sic-para -1 of the O.A). The statement is only that he was summoned through Police and not that he was arrested and produced. There is also no explanation as to why he took no action for the period between 1996 and 2017; if at all there was undue compulsion exerted on him. The learned Counsel would point out Exts.R2 (m) & (n) series of letters, which however are only seeking payment of amounts due under the General Provident Fund (GPF) which is seen to have been settled by Ext. R2(o); that too as early as in 2001. O.P.(CAT) No.282 of 2019 -6- 6. Again we notice that the applicant clearly admits to have resigned as per Annexure A4. The fact that he had claimed service benefits to be disbursed to his wife, does not deviate from the fact that he had submitted his resignation as per that letter. He was also entitled to other benefits like GPF which has been paid to him later on, as is evidenced by the documents produced as Exts. R2 (m) to (o). The acceptance of resignation as per Annexure A5, is said to have been despatched to the applicant in his address and as we noticed herein above, at no point of time, the applicant had raised an objection with respect of his resignation nor is there any averment as to he having submitted himself for duty before the competent authority. In fact the documents referred to above seeking disbursal of due amounts clearly show that the applicant had sought for such disbursal on the understanding that his service stood terminated by reason of O.P.(CAT) No.282 of 2019 -7- his resignation. 7. The next ground is as to the findings in A6 order of the Tribunal, at the earlier instance. The Tribunal had opined that the applicant had under the _bona fide_ belief that it would be possible for him to resign from service, without affecting his pension, so resigned especially since he had sought for disbursal of his service benefits to his wife. The Tribunal also found that the resignation letter seems to be written in the presence of police and that it apparently looks like a letter written by an officer. We are of the opinion that the said findings are only on surmises and conjectures and obviously even the Tribunal eventually in the order found that there was insufficient material for the official respondents to apply their mind and directed a detailed representation to be filed with supporting documents. The findings in the earlier order are not conclusive and do not O.P.(CAT) No.282 of 2019 -8- bind the official respondents and the consideration directed was an open remand to the authorities. Here it is pertinent to observe that the CCS (Pension) Rules specifically speaks of forfeiture of service on resignation, which rule has not been challenged and even if challenged it was liable to be repelled on the binding precedent noticed herein above. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to sustain the order of the Tribunal and we allow the original petition, rejecting the original application filed before the Tribunal. No order as to costs. **Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/ 11.11 x O.P.(CAT) No.282 of 2019 -9- ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN O.A.NO.180/00235/2018, DATED 27 FEB 2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1(A1) TRUE COPY OF DECLARATION AND GRADE OF APPOINTMENT OF THE APPLICANT AS PLUMBER DT 20.04.86 EXHIBIT P1(A2) TRUE COPY OF NATIONAL APPRENTICESHIP CERTIFICATE OF THE APPLICANT** **EXHIBIT P1(A3) TRUE COPY OF EMPLOYMENT AND CONDUCT CERTIFICATE OF THE APPLICANT DT. 27.11.92 EXHIBIT P1(A4) TRUE COPY OF RESIGNATION SAID TO HAVE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT EXHIBIT P1(A5) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 31.10.1996 SAID TO HAVE SENT TO THE APPLICANT ACCEPTING RESIGNATION BY 2NS RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1(A6) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29.08.17, IN OA NO. 215 OF 2017** **EXHIBIT P1(A7) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.12.2017 TO REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICANT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN OA** O.P.(CAT) No.282 of 2019 -10- ## **180/00235/2018 DATED 18.04.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH** - **EXHIBIT P2 (R2A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A. NO. 180/215/2017 DT. 29/8/2017** - **EXHIBIT P2 (R2B) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 6/10/17 FILED BY THE APPLICANT** - **EXHIBIT P2 (R2C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.4/12/17 ISSUED BY ND (V)** - **EXHIBIT P2 (R2D) TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER OF THE APPLICANT DT.21/3/1996** - **EXHIBIT P2 (R2E) TRUE COPY OF THE ND (V) NOTE PS/8401/7971 DT. 6/5/1996 REG. WITHDRAWAL OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS** - **EXHIBIT P2 (R2F) TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT SHOWING NON QUALIFYING SERVICE OF THE APPLICANT** - **EXHIBIT P2 (R2G) TRUE COPY OF THE ND(V) LETTER PIR/0503/7971/VKS DT.31.10.1996 REG. ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION** - **EXHIBIT P2 (R2H) TRUE COPY OF THE ND(V) CIVILIAN ESTABLISHMENT ORDER** - **EXHIBIT P2 (R2I) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 16.8.2000 FROM THE APPLICANT** - **EXHIBIT P2 (R2J) TRUE COPY OF THE RULE 26 OF CCS PENSION RULES, 1972** - **EXHIBIT P2 (R2K) TRUE COPY OF THE RULE 83 OF CCS PENSION RULES, 1972** - **EXHIBIT P2 (R2L) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF RULE 69 OF CCS PENSION RULES, 1972** - **EXHIBIT P2 (R2M) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE** O.P.(CAT) No.282 of 2019 -11- **APPLICANT DT. 15.1.2011 REG. SETTLEMENT OF GPF EXHIBIT P2 (R2N) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE APPLICANT DT. 22.3.2001 (REG.) SETTLEMENT OF GPF EXHIBIT P2 (R2O) TRUE COPY OF THE ND(V) LETTER MSF/6018 DT. 24.4.2001 REG. PAYMENT OF GPF EXHIBIT P3 CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.NO.180/00235/2018 DT.19.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**