Blog

Title: Khimji Bhai v UOI & Ors

Decided on: 13th October, 2023

+ W.P.(C) 13558/2023 & CM APPL.53576-53578/2023

CORAM: – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

Introduction

In this present petition, petitioner Khimji Bhai had requested the court to quash the order given on 20 September 1999 where the resignation of the petitioner was accepted without giving him pensionary benefits.

Facts of the Case

Khimji Bhai joined Border Security Force as a Constable on 3 July 1987. A few years later, in 1999 he was facing some personal and family problems hence he submitted his resignation on 20 September 1999. His Resignation was accepted however he was not given any pensionary benefit.

After that petitioner had made several representations however, they were not accepted, hence he filed the present petition.

Contentions

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had resigned on account of certain personal reasons and had already put in a qualifying service of 10 years. The Counsel for Petitioner relied on W.P.(C) 28475/2014 titled P.P. Jose vs. Union of India and stated that as per the precedent set in the given case, Khimji is entitled to the pension for the service already rendered.

Court Judgement and Analysis

The Hon’ble court denied the contention of the counsel for the petitioner giving the reason that Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 specifically provides that resignation from service or a post entails forfeiture of past service, they also emphasized that per this rule when a government servant resigns from service or a post, he forfeits his entire past service. Forfeiture of past service entails that there is no qualifying service left for computing or calculating the pensionary benefits. The court upheld that since the petitioner resigned voluntarily, there is automatic forfeiture of pension.

They also stated that in the case of P.P. Jose, he had been discharged from service after putting in qualifying service and the order of dismissal and removal did not specify that the pensionary benefits shall be forfeited. In those circumstances, the Kerala High Court granted pensionary benefits to him.

As the case of the petitioner was distinguishable from the facts in P.P. Jose. Accordingly, the said judgment did not apply to the facts of the present case, and the petition was dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Aditi

Click here to view the judgment