Resignation, even on medical grounds, leads to forfeiture of past service; cannot be equated with voluntary retirement.
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court Full Bench, led by Justices S.M. Subramaniam, D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, and C. Kumarappan, has clarified the implications of resignation under Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. The court decisively ruled that resignation, regardless of being on medical or health grounds, results in the forfeiture of past service. This judgment was delivered in response to conflicting interpretations from previous Division Bench judgments.
The court emphasized that the language of Rule 23 is clear and unambiguous, allowing no room for additional grounds such as resignation due to medical reasons. The bench highlighted that the rule explicitly states that resignation entails forfeiture unless it is to take up another appointment with proper permission, which qualifies the service. The judgment underscored the importance of a literal interpretation of statutory provisions when the language is clear, avoiding unnecessary expansion or reinterpretation.
The Full Bench also addressed the distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement, drawing on precedents from the Supreme Court. It reiterated that resignation and voluntary retirement are fundamentally different, with resignation typically resulting in forfeiture of past service, unlike voluntary retirement which is governed by specific statutory provisions allowing for pension benefits.
The court nullified the principles established in the case of D. Vijayarangan v. Secretary, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, affirming that the views from A.I. Angel Illangovan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, which upheld the forfeiture of service upon resignation, were correct.
This ruling has implications for government servants in Tamil Nadu, providing clarity on the consequences of resignation versus voluntary retirement. It reinforces the necessity for public servants to understand the statutory framework governing their service conditions, particularly concerning pension eligibility.
Bottom Line:
Resignation under Rule 23 of The Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 entails forfeiture of past service, irrespective of whether resignation is on medical grounds. The grounds for resignation are immaterial, and resignation cannot be equated with voluntary retirement.
Statutory provision(s): Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, Rule 41 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules.
Mr. D. Kaliyamoorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (Madras)(FB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2850430
