Why This Matters
In a significant ruling delivered in 2025, the Supreme Court of India has conclusively settled a long-standing controversy in service jurisprudence: whether a government employee who resigns from service can still claim pensionary benefits under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Court answered this in the negative, holding that resignation results in forfeiture of past service and consequently disentitles the employee from pension.
The judgment in Ashok Kumar Dabas (Dead Through Legal Heirs) v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2025) reaffirms the statutory distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement and underscores that courts cannot dilute clear pension rules on equitable considerations.
Background: Resignation vs Voluntary Retirement
Under the CCS (Pension) Rules, resignation and voluntary retirement are treated as fundamentally different modes of exit from government service.
- Resignation is governed by Rule 26(1) and ordinarily leads to forfeiture of past service unless the resignation is permitted to be withdrawn in public interest.
- Voluntary Retirement, governed by Rules 48 and 48-A, enables an employee who has completed the prescribed qualifying service to retire with pensionary benefits.
The confusion arose when employees who had completed substantial service resigned and later sought pension by arguing that their resignation should be treated as voluntary retirement. The Supreme Court has now firmly rejected this approach.
Facts of the Case: Ashok Kumar Dabas v. DTC (2025)
Ashok Kumar Dabas was an employee of the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) who had rendered nearly three decades of service. In 2014, he tendered his resignation citing personal reasons, which was duly accepted by the employer.
Subsequently, the employee sought withdrawal of resignation and claimed pensionary benefits on the ground that he had completed the requisite qualifying service. His claim was rejected by the DTC. Both the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court upheld the denial of pension, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the denial of pension. The Court relied squarely on Rule 26(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, which provides:
“Resignation from a service or post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest, entails forfeiture of past service.”
The Court held that:
- Resignation results in automatic forfeiture of past service.
- Once forfeiture occurs, no pensionary entitlement survives.
- Courts cannot convert resignation into voluntary retirement through judicial interpretation.
The Court emphasized that allowing such reclassification would defeat the clear legislative intent and render Rule 26 meaningless.
Pension vs Gratuity: An Important Distinction
While denying pension, the Supreme Court clarified an important legal distinction. Pension flows exclusively from service rules, whereas gratuity is governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Accordingly:
- Forfeiture of pension does not automatically result in forfeiture of gratuity.
- If the statutory conditions under the Gratuity Act are satisfied, gratuity remains payable.
- Leave encashment is also treated as a separate statutory entitlement.
This clarification prevents conflation of distinct statutory regimes and protects limited employee benefits despite resignation.
Statutory Comparison
| Benefit | Governing Law | Effect of Resignation |
|---|---|---|
| Pension | CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 | Forfeited due to Rule 26(1) |
| Gratuity | Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 | Payable if statutory conditions are met |
| Leave Encashment | Service Rules | Generally payable as a separate entitlement |
Earlier Case Law Reaffirmed
The judgment builds upon and reaffirms earlier Supreme Court rulings, including:
- BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. v. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma (2020) 3 SCC 346, where the Court held that resignation cannot be retrospectively treated as voluntary retirement.
- Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1971), recognizing pension as a statutory right, subject to conditions imposed by pension rules.
- D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983), affirming pension as a measure of social security, but not immune from statutory forfeiture.
Legal Significance of the Judgment
- Settles the resignation versus voluntary retirement controversy conclusively.
- Affects lakhs of Central and State government employees.
- Will be heavily cited in service law and pension litigation.
- Reinforces strict statutory interpretation over equitable considerations.
The judgment strengthens administrative certainty and prevents pension claims based on post-resignation equity arguments.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ashok Kumar Dabas v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2025) marks a decisive moment in Indian service jurisprudence. By reaffirming that resignation leads to forfeiture of past service and pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, the Court has provided much-needed clarity and consistency.
For government employees, the message is clear: if pension is the objective, voluntary retirement — not resignation — is the legally protected path.
