Dismissed

Kailash Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC6 Feb 2024W.P.(C)/1115/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a petition filed by an ex-Armyman who voluntarily retired from CRPF after suffering a disability. The petitioner sought pension benefits despite serving fewer than 20 years and having previously excluded his Army service from CRPF records. The Court held he was ineligible.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no direction to provide retirement benefits or pension.

Kailash Singh Vs Union of India & Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

% Date of decision: February 06, 2024

¶3

W.P.(C) 1115/2021

¶4

(22) KAILASH SINGH ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Samesh Rai with Gaurav Kumar Rai, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPC, UOI. Ms. Ramneet Kaur, Ms. Mishika Pandita, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE SAURABH BANERJEE, J. (ORAL)

¶10

As per facts, the petitioner an Ex-Armyman, joined the Central Reserve Police Force1 as a Constable on 10.03.2003 through the Ex-Army service quota. On 01.05.2018, while in CRPF, he suffered severe headache and later on his right side of the body also got paralysed. Upon recovery, he underwent a fitness test at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 20.08.2018, where he was declared ‘ physically weak ’.

¶11

Facing physical disability, as per advice of senior officials at the time of his interview, the petitioner sought Voluntary Retirement from Service2 after serving there for 15 years 7 months and 20 days from CRPF, which was accordingly granted to him on 20.10.2018. The petitioner then applied

¶12

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘ CRPF ’

¶13

2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘ VRS ’

¶14

Page 1 of 5

¶15

W.P.(C) 1115/2021

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Da te:1 3.02.2024 18:33:48

¶18

for pension and other retirement benefits, however, the same was denied by CRPF vide letter dated 03.08.2019 as the petitioner, being a personnel resigning on his volition, was not entitled to any post-retirement benefits.

¶19

Thus, the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the two letters dated 16.08.2019 and 11.09.2019 issued by respondent No.2 as well as a direction to the said respondent no.2 to provide retirement benefits, including pension to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner was suffering from paralysis, he was unfit to serve in the CRPF and therefore applied for VRS on the advice of the medical board, constituted by CRPF. He submits that the decision of CRPF not providing post-retiremental benefits is arbitrary and discriminatory as the petitioner is entitled to them under the CCS Pension Rules, 1972.

¶20

Lastly, relying upon Shashikala Devi vs. Central Bank of India³ learned counsel submits that also as there is no distinction between ‘resignation’ and ‘retirement’, the petitioner is entitled to the same. 6. Learned SPC for the respondents on the other hand submits that vide Letter No. P-III-1/209-GC-Pension dated 03.08.2019, the petitioner was categorically apprised that if any employee resigns from the Force-CRPF on his own volition, then he will not be entitled to any kind of pension. So much so, he was also informed regarding the dividends paid to the petitioner after being discharged from service.

¶21

Learned SPC further submits that after examination of the Service Book of the petitioner, it was found that as per Rule 19(1) of the CCS

¶22

3(2014) 16 SCC 260

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

W.P.(C) 1115/2021

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Da te:1 3.02.2024 18:33:48

¶27

(Pension) Rules 1972, the petitioner vide his hand written application dated 22.04.2003, had himself requested not to include his service from 07.12.1984 to 01.09.2001 in the Army, with the service in CRPF. He also submits that, in any event, as of 20.10.2018, the petitioner had only served for 15 Years 07 months and 11 days in CRPF and as per the CRPF Pension Rule-1972⁴ , an employee of CRPF resigning before completing 20 years of service shall not be entitled to any kind of pension benefits.

¶28

Lastly, relying upon Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance 5 Corporation Of India & Ors. vs. Shree Lal Meena , learned SPC also submits that it is no longer res integra that ‘resignation’ cannot be equated with ‘retirement’.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid factors and submissions therewith, learned SPC prays for dismissal of the present writ petition. 10. This Court has heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the documents on record as also gone through the judgments relied on by them.

¶30

What thus, admittedly , unfurls herein is the fact that the petitioner did seek VRS from the CRPF; and the fact that he had volunteered not to count his past service in the Army as also that at the time of seeking VRS he was well short of the requisite 20 years mandated for grant of post-retiremental benefits.

¶31

Therefore, this Court is to consider if, under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to now claim post-retiremental benefits by way of the present petition.

¶32

4CRPF Rules

¶33

5(2019) 4 SCC 479

¶34

Page 3 of 5

¶35

W.P.(C) 1115/2021

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Da te:1 3.02.2024 18:33:48

¶38

Analysing the aforesaid, this Court finds that the petitioner was bound to follow the Act, Rule(s), Regulation(s) including the various Notification(s) issued from time to time governing CRPF while serving there and when he sought VRS. In accordance therewith, the petitioner was bound to follow the CRPF Pension Rules, 1972, which warrants a minimum requisite period of 20 years of service for any personnel to avail such postretiremental benefits. In the present case, since the petitioner had only completed 15 years 7 months and 11 days in the CRPF, he was not eligible to avail the post-retiremental benefits.

¶39

The petitioner can also not seek cumulative benefit of his past service as an ex-serviceman in the Army with the aforesaid period of 15 years 7 months and 11 days he served with the CRPF, more so, when the petitioner himself, on resuming his duties after an extended leave of 106 days of holidays on medical ground chose/ requested vide his own application dated 24.02.2003 for non-inclusion of his past service in Army with his service in the CRPF. There being no change in circumstances since then, today also he can hardly lay any claim entitling him for which he was/is ineligible. Once having willingly expressed his consent while seeking VRS for non-inclusion of his past service in Army, the petitioner cannot now, suiting to his convenience, retract therefrom.

¶40

Based thereon, thus the petitioner was not entitled to any postretiremental benefits, which in any event could not be granted to him as a matter of right.

¶41

Furthermore, the legislature in its wisdom has carved out a stark distinction inter se ‘resignation’ and ‘retirement’, which have different meanings, connotations as they operate in different realms. The petitioner,

¶42

Page 4 of 5

¶43

W.P.(C) 1115/2021

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Da te:1 3.02.2024 18:33:48

¶46

thus, cannot call upon this Court to equate them in the same breath. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Shree Lal Meena (supra), relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinunder:-

¶47

“26. … …When the legislature, in its wisdom, brings forth certain beneficial provisions in the form of Pension Regulations from a particular date and on particular terms and conditions, aspects which are excluded cannot be included in it by implication. The provisions will have to be read as they read unless there is some confusion or they are capable of another interpretation. We may also note that while framing such schemes, there is an important aspect of them being of a contributory nature and their financial implications. Such financial implications are both, for the contributors and for the State. Thus, it would be inadvisable to expand such beneficial schemes beyond their contours to extend them to employees for whom they were not meant for by the legislature.”

¶48

In view thereof, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on Shashikala Devi (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner, more so, whence the same was pertaining to a case involving a long service, that too in one department and under compelling circumstances whereas in the present case, not only the tenure of service of the petitioner falls short of the requisite 20 years, but his past service in Army cannot be counted with his service in the CRPF as also in view of the subsequent clarification rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shree Lal Meena (supra).

¶49

For the afore-stated discussions and reasoning therewith involving the existing facts and circumstances as also the settled position in law, this Court finds the petitioner not entitled to any of the reliefs sought.

¶50