SHRIKRISHNA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has approached this Tribunal for finalisation of his pension case.

(2.) The applicant was appointed in 1977, declared as quasi permanent in 1980 came to be transferred from Ratnagiri to Nagpur and continued in service till 2.6.1987, while working at Nagpur, according to the applicant, he suffered from severe illness and due to ill-health and other circumstances beyond his control, he tendered his resignation on 02.6.1987. It was accepted on 11.11.1987 and a certificate was issued accordingly on 01.9.1999. The applicant had been working as Transmission Executive at All India Radio from 31.3.1977 to 1.6.1987. He also obtained no objection certificate. According to the applicant, since he had put in 10 years of continuous service, he is entitled to pensionary benefits, but the same has not been finalised in his case. As per Pension Rules, having put in more than 10 years of service, he is entitled to pension. The applicant has cited the judgment in the case of Omprakash Singh Mourya v. Union of India in support of this. The applicant submits that he had also been asked vide letter dated 11.12.1997 advising to submit copy of Government order for retirement benefits so as to enable the respondents to consider his case. However, nothing happened. He has not been paid anything.

(3.) THE respondents submit that the applicant resigned from service on 2.6.1987. He did not give any reason for his resignation. His contention regarding illness and ill-health are not reflected in his resignation letter, nor was the applicant an invalid person at the time of tendering his resignation. According to the pension rules, resignation leads to forfeiture of any retiral benefits. THE respondents agree that the applicant had put in more than 10 years of continuous service. Since he had voluntarily tendered his resignation of his own volition, he has forfeited his past services. THE applicant had made representation on 24.4.1988, 8.1.1990, 6.3.1994, 6.4.2000 and 19.5.2000 and he was replied vide letter dated 30.5.1995 that he is not entitled for any terminal benefits of retirement as per the CCS (Pension) Rules.