Rule 26(2) of the CCS Pension Rules: the 10-day window that triggered forfeiture.

When a CISF Inspector’s Resignation Cost Him 13 Years of Pension

H.R. Vijaya Kumar had spent 13 years as an Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force. In 1997, he saw a job posting from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited for a Security Officer. The application window was just 10 days. He acted fast—within six days, he asked his Commandant for permission to apply. But the CISF returned his application, saying the deadline had passed. He then asked for a No Objection Certificate to attend the interview. That too was refused. He took leave anyway, attended the interview, got selected, and resigned from the CISF in June 1998, citing “unavoidable circumstances.” He did not mention the HAL job.

The CISF denied him pro rata pension. He went to the Karnataka High Court—and won twice. The Single Judge and the Division Bench both ruled in his favour. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court. And there, the story turned. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that under Rule 26(2) of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, resignation without due permission forfeits past service and pension benefits. The High Court’s orders were set aside. Thirteen years of service, gone for pension purposes.

The 10-Day Window That Changed Everything

In 1997, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) advertised a Security Officer post. The application window was short—just 10 days. For serving government employees, the advertisement required applications to be sent through the proper channel. H.R. Vijaya Kumar, then an Inspector in the CISF, wanted to apply. On 25 June 1997, he wrote to his Commandant seeking permission to apply through proper channel. He also sent a direct application to HAL.

The CISF returned his permission application, stating that the deadline for forwarding applications had already passed. Kumar then sought a No Objection Certificate to attend the interview. That too was refused. Despite the refusal, he took leave, appeared for the interview, and was selected. On 20 July 1998, he resigned from the CISF, citing “unavoidable circumstances.” His resignation letter did not mention the HAL appointment.

The Pension Denial and the First Court Battle

On 10 May 1999, the CISF authorities passed an order on Kumar’s terminal benefits. They granted him his GPF and earned leave encashment. But they denied him pro rata monthly pension. The reason: he had not applied through proper channel with due permission. Kumar challenged this order before the Karnataka High Court. A Single Judge allowed his writ petition, directing the CISF to consider his pensionary benefits.

Pursuant to that order, the Deputy Inspector General (DOS) of the CISF passed a speaking order on 22 June 2002. The DIG noted that Kumar had never mentioned the HAL employment in his resignation letter. The DIG held that under Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules, Kumar was disentitled to pension. Kumar filed a second writ petition. On 18 February 2008, a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowed it, directing the grant of pro rata pension and gratuity for his service from 15 July 1985 to 20 July 1998. The Division Bench dismissed the Union’s appeal on 8 July 2011, holding that Kumar had no intention to conceal his alternate appointment.

The Supreme Court’s First Look: A Remand with a Specific Direction

The Union of India filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. On 25 February 2011, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the matter to the Division Bench. The Court specifically held that the High Court had not appropriately considered the effect of Rule 26(2) of the CCS Pension Rules. The Division Bench was directed to decide the matter afresh, keeping Rule 26(2) in mind.

But when the matter came back to the Division Bench, it again dismissed the Union’s appeal, endorsing the Single Judge’s order. The Union appealed again. This time, the Supreme Court took a hard look at the rule itself.

The Rule That Decided the Case

Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, deals with forfeiture of service on resignation. The normal rule under Rule 26 is that resignation from service leads to forfeiture of past service. The exception—where forfeiture does not apply—is when the incumbent applies for the new job with proper permission of the authorities. Rule 26(2) specifically provides that resignation from government service to take up employment in another organization without due permission of the competent authority of the former employer entails forfeiture of past service and consequent disentitlement to pro rata pension benefits.

The Supreme Court, in Union of India and Others v. Braj Nandan Singh (2005) 8 SCC 325, had already settled this position. The Court in that case held that Rule 26 clearly provides that resignation from service for another post without due permission will entail forfeiture of service. The present case, the Court noted, was squarely covered by that precedent.

What the Supreme Court Found

Justice Hrishikesh Roy, writing for the Bench, examined the facts closely. Kumar had applied for permission to apply through proper channel. That permission was refused. He had sought a No Objection Certificate to attend the interview. That too was refused. Despite these refusals, he took leave, attended the interview, got selected, and resigned. His resignation letter did not mention the HAL employment. The Court found that Kumar had not obtained due permission from the competent authority. The mere act of applying for permission did not suffice if such permission was not actually granted.

The Court also noted that the High Court had erred in holding that the delay was on the CISF’s part. The application window was 10 days. Kumar applied to his Commandant on the sixth day. The CISF returned the application, saying the deadline had passed. The Court did not find this to be a case where the CISF had acted unreasonably. The key point was that Kumar had not obtained permission, and he had not disclosed the HAL employment in his resignation.

THE TEST: Under Rule 26(2) of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, resignation from government service to take up another job without due permission of the competent authority of the former employer triggers forfeiture of past service. The mere act of applying for permission does not suffice—the permission must actually be granted.

Why the High Court Got It Wrong

The Single Judge had directed the grant of pro rata pension on the ground that Kumar had applied for permission within time and the delay was on the CISF’s part. The Division Bench had held that Kumar had no intention to conceal his alternate appointment. The Supreme Court found both these conclusions to be erroneous. The Court held that the statutory provision does not warrant an interpretation that benefits an incumbent merely because he applied directly to another employer when such application is not supported by due permission of the competent authority.

The Court also noted that the High Court had not appropriately considered the effect of Rule 26(2) even after the Supreme Court had specifically remanded the matter for that purpose. The Division Bench’s judgment dated 8 July 2011 was set aside, along with the Single Judge’s order dated 18 February 2008.

The Bottom Line for Practitioners

For advocates advising government employees, this judgment is a sharp reminder: the default position under Rule 26 is forfeiture. The burden is on the employee to demonstrate compliance with the permission requirement. A direct application to another employer, even if accompanied by a request for permission through proper channel, does not satisfy the rule if the permission is not actually granted. The employee must obtain the permission before applying, attending interviews, or accepting the new job. Any deviation from this sequence—especially if the resignation letter does not disclose the new employment—will almost certainly result in forfeiture of past service and pension benefits.

For CFOs and founders hiring from government service, this judgment means that the employee’s resignation from their previous government job may not have been validly tendered. If the employee did not obtain due permission, their past service is forfeited, and they may not be entitled to pension from their previous employer. This could affect the employee’s financial planning and, in some cases, their eligibility for certain benefits in the new organization.

THE BOTTOM LINE: If a government employee resigns to join another organization without obtaining due permission from the competent authority, Rule 26(2) of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, mandates forfeiture of past service and pension benefits—and the Supreme Court will not hesitate to set aside any High Court order that grants such benefits.