2025:HHC:27196 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2386 of 2024 Decided on: 12th August, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nirmala Devi …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Central Government Counsel. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner, presently aged around 73 years, is wife of late Sh. Bihari Lal Dogra. She seeks a direction to the respondents for granting her family pension on account of service rendered by her late husband. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. The case 3(i). Sh. Bihari Lal Dogra served as Constable in the Border Security Force (BSF) w.e.f. 29.10.1965 to 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:27196 22.05.1970, i.e. for a period of 04 years, 07 months and 24 days. He tendered resignation from BSF on 22.05.1970. 3(ii). After resigning from BSF on 22.05.1970, Sh. Bihari Lal Dogra enrolled in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) against the post of Cook on 18.01.1972 as a fresh candidate through direct recruitment. His enrollment in CISF was not only as a fresh candidate through direct recruitment, but also after a lapse of 01 year, 07 months and 27 days from his resigning from BSF. 3(iii). Sh. Bihari Lal Dogra rendered service in CISF from 18.01.1972 till 08.10.1987. He resigned from CISF on 08.10.1987. He had thus rendered 15 years, 08 months and 20 days of service in CISF. Since Sh. Bihari Lal Dogra did not have to his credit 20 years of qualifying service required under Rule 48A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (in short ‘CCS (Pension) Rules’), he was not paid pension by the respondents. 3(iv). Sh. Bihari Lal Dogra accepted the above decision. During his lifetime, he did not take recourse to legal remedy against respondents’ not paying him pension for want of qualifying service to his credit. Sh. Bihari Lal Dogra passed away on 07.09.2002. 16 years later, petitioner preferred CWP No.2565 of 2018 seeking pension. 3 2025:HHC:27196 The writ petition was disposed of on 14.07.2022 with directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of pension. Pursuant thereto, the respondents passed a speaking order on 02.09.2022 (Annexure P-12), rejecting the case of the petitioner as her husband had rendered 15 years, 08 months and 20 days of service in CISF and was not eligible for grant of pension in accordance with the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Petitioner feels aggrieved against the rejection of her case by the respondents under order dated 02.09.2022. 4. Consideration Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 provides for forfeiture of service on resignation and reads as under:- “26. Forfeiture of service on resignation (1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the Appointing Authority, entails forfeiture of past service. (2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies. (3) Interruption in service in a case falling under sub-rule (2), due to the two appointments being at different stations, not exceeding the joining time permissible under the rules of transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government servant on the date of relief or by formal condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to him. 4 2025:HHC:27196 (4) The Appointing Authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest on the following conditions, namely:- (i) that the resignation was tendered by the Government servant for some compelling reasons which did not involve any reflection on his integrity, efficiency or conduct and the request for withdrawal of the resignation has been made as a result of a material change in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender the resignation; (ii) that during the period intervening between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date from which the request for withdrawal was made, the conduct of the person concerned was in no way improper; (iii) that the period of absence from duty between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed to resume duty as a result of permission to withdraw the resignation is not more than ninety days; (iv) that the post, which was vacated by the Government servant on the acceptance of his resignation or any other comparable post, is available. (5) Request for withdrawal of a resignation shall not be accepted by the Appointing Authority where a Government servant resigns his service or post with a view to taking up an appointment in or under a private commercial company or in or under a corporation or company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government or in or under a body controlled or financed by the Government. (6) When an order is passed by the Appointing Authority allowing a person to withdraw his resignation and to resume duty, the order shall be deemed to include the condonation of interruption in service but the period of interruption shall not count as qualifying service. (7) A resignation submitted for the purpose of Rule 37 shall not entail forfeiture of past service under the Government.” 5 2025:HHC:27196 The above Rule clearly stipulates that resignation from a service or post unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in public interest by the appointing authority entails forfeiture of past service. Admittedly, the exceptions carved out in Rules 26(2) and (3) are not attracted to the present case. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner’s husband had himself resigned from BSF on 22.05.1970 after rendering 04 years, 07 months and 24 days of service. His such service gets forfeited in view of Rule 26(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules. The service rendered by petitioner’s husband in CISF fell short of requisite 20 years of qualifying service. It is also not in dispute that the service rendered by petitioner’s husband in CISF was pursuant to his participation in the direct recruitment process as a fresh candidate. It is also not the petitioner’s case that her husband had resigned from BSF to join services in another organization with permission of concerned authorities. There was a gap of 01 year, 07 months and 27 days between his resignation from BSF and joining the CISF. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to refer to Union of India & Ors. Versus H.R. Vijaya Kumar2, wherein taking into consideration the law laid down in 2 Civil Appeal No.7351/2013, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 31.08.2023 6 2025:HHC:27196 Union of India and others vs Braj Nandan Singh3, it was held that Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules in clear terms provides forfeiture of service on account of resignation from a service to another post without due permission. Relevant paragraphs from the decision are as under:- “16. In the said letter, the respondent did not indicate that he is resigning to join services in another organisation. Forfeiture of service on resignation is prescribed under Rule 26(2) of the CCS Pension Rules unless the incumbent joins another job, with proper permission of the competent authority of the former employer. 17. This Court in Union of India and Others vs Braj Nandan Singh reported in (2005) 8 SCC 325, while considering Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules observed that Rule 26 in clear terms provides that resignation from a service for another post, without due permission will entail forfeiture of service. In this case, although the respondent did seek permission of his employer to apply for the opening in HAL, such permission was not forthcoming. In the meantime, the respondent applied directly, appeared in the selection process availing leave despite denial of permission, and then took up the new assignment. The circumstances here would show that the present case is squarely covered by sub-Rule (2) of Rule 26 of CCS Pension Rules. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the High Court erred in granting relief to the respondent by ordering that his resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service. The reading of the applicable statutory provision does not warrant an interpretation which will enure to the benefit of an incumbent merely because he applies directly when such application is not supported by due permission of the competent authority. 18. At this stage, we may also usefully refer to the judgment of this Court rendered on 25.02.2011 in SLP (C) No.31788 of 2009 Union of India vs. H.R. Vijaya Kumar, where in the earlier round, on the decision given in favour of the respondent by the High Court, the 3 (2005) 8 SCC 325 7 2025:HHC:27196 Supreme Court indicated that the effect of the relevant Rules including Rule 26(2) of the CCS Pension Rules was not appropriately considered by the High Court. Therefore, the judgment passed by the High Court on 18.02.2008 in the Writ Petition No.28751 of 2002 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Division Bench of the High Court for a fresh decision, in accordance with the law. 19. When we examine the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and also of the Division Bench, it is seen that the Court failed to consider the implication of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules. If the relevant Rules were to be considered, the only reasonable conclusion would have been that the writ petitioner would be disentitled to relief. Unfortunately, the implication of the Rules was not appropriately considered despite the specific direction of this Court in the earlier round on 25.02.2011.” In the instant case also, the undisputed facts about petitioner’s husband having resigned from BSF and after lapse of more than 01 year and 07 months joining as a fresh candidate through a direct recruitment process in CISF, would entail forfeiture of his service rendered in BSF in view of Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Additionally, as noticed earlier, after resigning from CISF on 08.10.1987, petitioner’s husband during his lifetime, did not assail respondents’ action of not giving him pension. Petitioner’s husband left for heavenly abode on 07.09.2002. Petitioner took recourse to legal remedy in the year 2018 seeking family pension. The delay and laches have not been explained in the writ petition. On merits also, as noticed above, the case of the petitioner does not meet the 8 2025:HHC:27196 parameters laid down in the CCS (Pension) Rules for grant of pension/family pension. No other point was urged. 5. In view of above, the relief as claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted to her. This writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 12, 2025 Judge Mukesh