Whether government servant can be denied pension if he is compulsorily retired?

In the present case, the qualifying service for getting the pension is of 10 years' duration, as prescribed under Regulation 14 of the Pension Regulations. The right to get the pension accrues as soon as an employee completes 10 years of his service. It cannot be denied to him unless it is shown that he is either disqualified for getting the pension or the past service rendered by him is forfeited under any of the statutory provisions. Under the service jurisprudence, normally an employee, who is terminated, dismissed or removed from service by way of punishment, is disqualified for getting the pension. On tendering resignation upon rendering qualifying service, an employee incurs forfeiture of his past service. The voluntary retirement, after rendering qualified service, or compulsory retirement, would not result either in disqualification for getting the pension or forfeiture of the past service rendered.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 2348 of 2017

Decided On: 21.09.2018

 Vandana Vs. State Bank of India and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.K. Deshpande and Arun D. Upadhye, JJ.

Citation: 2019(2) MHLJ 197

Print Page

Whether DTC v. Lillu Ram dated 14th December, 2011 requires reconsideration?

The judgment in the case of Lillu Ram (supra) rendered by a Division Bench does not show any consideration or reasons as to why when factually the employee had been sanctioned leave without pay, such period was treated by this Court to be a period of unauthorised absence. Even the relevant rules such as Rules 27 & 28 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 or F.R. 17-A of the Fundamental Rules on which reliance has been placed by the Respondents was not noticed or considered.

4. Prima facie, we are of the view that no adverse effect can be permitted upon the right of the employee to receive pension unless he was given notice by appropriate entry in the service book or through other notice that his absence will be treated as unauthorised absence and will not be counted towards qualifying service for pension. In absence of such notice, after the Respondent-employee has taken voluntary retirement under VRS and that too on the ground that he has completed ten years of service, it may be unjust and very harsh to inflict him with such adverse consequences. No doubt in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 28 of the Pension Rules which relates to condonation of interruption of service, an opportunity of representation is required to be given to the employee before making entry in service book regarding forfeiture of past service only, but there appears to be some substance in the submission that Rules of Natural Justice may be attracted even in other similar situation where the entry is regarding unauthorised absence, if it is to have the effect of break in service adversely affecting the length of qualifying service for pension.

5. In our considered view, the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in case of Lillu Ram (supra) requires re-consideration by a larger Bench. For that purpose, the matter may be brought to the notice of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7159 of 2014

Decided On: 09.11.2016

D.T.C.Vs.Balwan Singh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Shiva Kirti Singh and R. Banumathi, JJ.

Citation:(2017) 11 SCC 405

Print Page

Whether an employee can be denied pension due to unauthorised absence?

 When the matter was being heard, we had some doubt in our mind with regard to actual absence of the Respondent during the period of 10 years of service, rendered with the Appellant. Thus, to satisfy ourselves, we had asked the learned Counsel for Appellant to produce before us the original Service Book of the Respondent. We have gone through the same ourselves and find that he had remained absent from duty without leave unauthorisedly for a total period of 486 days out of total 10 years of service with D.T.C. His service record further reflects that he was issued three warnings and one censure from time to time for remaining absent from duty unauthorisedly. But there was no improvement in the performance of the Respondent. If the aforesaid period of 486 days is deducted from the period of 10 years that he had worked with the Appellant then his actual working days would be reduced to 8 years 3 months and 17 days. If that be so, then as per the definition of 'qualifying service' under Clause 3(1)(q) of the Pension Rules, he has certainly not rendered service while on duty or otherwise for a period of 10 years to become entitled for pensionary benefits.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

C.A. No. 11440/2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12165/2011)

Decided On: 14.12.2011

Delhi transport corporation Vs.  Lillu Ram

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Deepak Verma and K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, JJ.

Citation:(2017) 11 SCC 407

Print Page