Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a government servant, was appointed as a Peon in 1996 and later promoted to Assistant. He absented himself from duty from 02.05.2012. A memorandum dated 05.12.2012 treated the absence as a break in service, forfeiting his past service under Rule 27 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and a major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on 17.10.2019. The petitioner was denied pensionary benefits, and his appeal was rejected on 14.12.2021. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the memorandum denying pension and to direct grant of pension under Rule 40 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The court noted that the order of compulsory retirement and the memorandum forfeiting past service were not challenged and had attained finality. Relying on State of Punjab v. Gurbaran Singh, the court held that forfeiture of past service excludes it from qualifying service, and thus the petitioner is not entitled to pension. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pensionary Benefits - Forfeiture of Past Service - Rule 27 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - The petitioner's unauthorized absence was treated as break in service forfeiting past service under Rule 27, and the order was never challenged. The court held that once past service is forfeited, it is excluded from qualifying service, and the employee cannot claim pension. (Paras 10-11)
B) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Finality of Orders - The penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner was not challenged and attained finality. The court declined to examine the perversity of inquiry findings as the order was not under challenge. (Para 9)
C) Service Law - Qualifying Service - Entitlement to Pension - The court, relying on State of Punjab v. Gurbaran Singh, held that forfeiture of past service renders the period spent on duty inconsequential for pension, and the employee lacks the qualifying period of service. (Para 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits despite the forfeiture of past service and penalty of compulsory retirement which have attained finality.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The court held that the order of compulsory retirement and the memorandum forfeiting past service were not challenged and have attained finality. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefits.
Law Points
- Forfeiture of past service under Rule 27 of CCS (Pension) Rules
- 1972
- effect of unchallenged disciplinary orders
- qualifying service for pension
- scope of judicial review of inquiry findings
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (09) 2740
WRIT PETITION NO. 337 OF 2024
M. S. Karnik, Valmiki Menezes
Ms Apeksha Kalokhe, Mr Shubham Priolkar
Shri Shivdas Vithu Pednekar
State of Goa, The Secretary (GA), The Under Secretary (GA-I), The Under Secretary (GA-II)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging denial of pensionary benefits.
Remedy Sought
Quash memorandum dated 24.03.2021 denying pensionary benefits and direct respondents to grant pensionary benefits under Rule 40 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was denied pensionary benefits due to forfeiture of past service and penalty of compulsory retirement.
Previous Decisions
Memorandum dated 05.12.2012 treating absence as break in service forfeiting past service; penalty of compulsory retirement dated 17.10.2019; appeal rejected on 14.12.2021.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits despite the forfeiture of past service and penalty of compulsory retirement which have attained finality.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that there were compelling reasons for absence (fear due to alleged threat by Minister) and sought pensionary benefits.
Respondents argued that the orders forfeiting past service and imposing compulsory retirement were not challenged and have attained finality; hence, petitioner is not entitled to pension.
Ratio Decidendi
Once past service is forfeited under Rule 27 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, it is excluded from qualifying service, and the employee cannot claim pension. Orders that have attained finality cannot be reopened in a writ petition challenging consequential denial of benefits.
Judgment Excerpts
It is pertinent to note that by memorandum dated 05.12.2012 the period of unauthorized absence from 02.05.2012 to 05.12.2012 was treated as a break in service having the effect of interruption in service thereby forfeiting the past service in terms of Rules 27 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Even this order was never challenged and has attained finality.
The decision relied upon by learned Additional Government Advocate in the State of Punjab and others Vs Gurbaran Singh (supra) lays down that if the past service stands forfeited, the same would be excluded from the period of qualifying service and as such for deciding the question of entitlement to pension, the employee would not have 'the qualifying period of service'.
Procedural History
Petitioner was appointed as Peon in 1996, promoted to Assistant. Absented from 02.05.2012. Memorandum dated 05.12.2012 treated absence as break in service forfeiting past service. Disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Inquiry report dated 11.03.2016 held charges proved. Penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on 17.10.2019. Memorandum dated 24.03.2021 denied pensionary benefits. Appeal rejected on 14.12.2021. Writ petition filed on 12.09.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972: Rule 27, Rule 40
- Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965: Rule 14
- Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964: Rule 3(1)(i), (ii), (iii)
