This CISF inspector's 10-day job offer cost him 13 years of pension.

One resignation, two courts, and a pension that vanished

H.R. Vijaya Kumar joined the Central Industrial Security Force as an Inspector in 1985. Thirteen years later, he walked out. He had found a better job—Security Officer at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited—and he took it. But he never told his bosses at CISF that he was leaving for HAL. His resignation letter cited only "unavoidable circumstances." That omission cost him his pension.

The Supreme Court of India, in Union of India & Ors. v. H.R. Vijaya Kumar (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 807), allowed the Union's appeal and set aside two successive orders of the Karnataka High Court that had granted pro rata pension to the former CISF Inspector. The Bench—Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Sanjay Karol—held that under Rule 26(2) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, resignation without due permission from the competent authority triggers forfeiture of past service. Period.

The case is a sharp reminder for every government employee who dreams of jumping to a public sector undertaking without following the proper channel. And for every employer who watches talent walk out the door without a No Objection Certificate.

The job offer that came with a 10-day window

In 1997, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited advertised a Security Officer post. The application window was just ten days. Kumar, then an Inspector in CISF, wanted to apply. But the rules required serving candidates to apply "through proper channel"—meaning through his Commandant.

Kumar acted fast. Within six days of the advertisement, on 25 June 1997, he submitted an application to his Commandant seeking permission to apply for the HAL post. He also, crucially, sent a direct application to HAL.

CISF returned his permission application. The deadline, they said, had passed. Kumar then asked for a No Objection Certificate to attend the interview. That, too, was refused.

He went anyway. He took leave, appeared for the interview, got selected, and resigned from CISF in June 1998. His resignation letter cited "unavoidable circumstances." It did not mention HAL.

What the CISF did—and didn't—pay

When Kumar left, CISF processed his terminal benefits. They paid his General Provident Fund and earned leave encashment. But they denied him pro rata monthly pension. The reason: he had not applied through proper channel with due permission. The order was passed on 10 May 1999.

Kumar challenged this in the High Court of Karnataka. A Single Judge allowed his writ petition and directed CISF to reconsider his pensionary benefits. Pursuant to that order, the Deputy Inspector General (DOS) of CISF passed a speaking order on 22 June 2002. The DIG noted that Kumar had never mentioned his HAL employment in his resignation letter. He held that under Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules, Kumar was disentitled to pension.

Kumar filed a second writ petition. This time, the Single Judge ruled in his favour on 18 February 2008. The court found that Kumar had applied for permission on 25 June 1997 and that the delay was on CISF's part. It directed the grant of pro rata pension for his service from 15 July 1985 to 20 July 1998, along with gratuity.

The Union of India appealed. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that Kumar had no intention to conceal his alternate appointment. The Single Judge's order stood.

The Supreme Court's first intervention

The Union filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. On 25 February 2011, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the matter to the Division Bench. The reason: 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 case afresh, keeping Rule 26(2) in mind.

The Division Bench heard the matter again. And again, it dismissed the Union's appeal. It held that Kumar had applied for permission within time and that the CISF's refusal was unreasonable. The pension order was upheld.

The Union appealed again. This time, the Supreme Court heard the matter on merits.

The rule that broke the pension claim

The Supreme Court's analysis turned on a single provision: Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972. The rule has two sub-parts. Rule 26(1) states the general rule: resignation from government service entails forfeiture of past service. Rule 26(2) carves out an exception—but only if the resignation is for taking up another job with the permission of the competent authority.

The Court held that Kumar's case fell squarely within Rule 26(2). He had resigned to join HAL. He had not obtained permission from CISF. His direct application to HAL, his attendance at the interview without an NOC, and his resignation letter that concealed the real reason—all pointed to a clear violation of the rule.

The Court relied on Union of India and Others v. Braj Nandan Singh (2005) 8 SCC 325, which had already settled the law: "Rule 26 of CCS Pension Rules clearly provides that resignation from service for another post without due permission will entail forfeiture of service."

The Bench observed 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 TEST: Did the employee apply for the new job through proper channel? Did the competent authority grant permission? If the answer to either is "no," Rule 26(2) applies—and past service is forfeited.

Why the High Court got it wrong—twice

The Supreme Court was blunt. The Single Judge and the Division Bench had both ignored the plain language of Rule 26(2). They had focused on Kumar's intention—whether he meant to conceal his alternate employment—rather than on the statutory requirement of permission.

"The High Court did not appropriately consider the effect of Rule 26(2)," the Court noted, referencing its own earlier remand order. Even after the matter was sent back with specific directions, the Division Bench had again failed to apply the rule correctly.

The Court also rejected the argument that Kumar had "applied for permission" within time. Applying for permission is not the same as obtaining it. The Commandant had returned the application. The NOC was refused. Kumar knew he did not have permission. He went ahead anyway.

The Court held that the mere act of applying for permission does not suffice if such permission was not actually granted. The burden is on the employee to demonstrate compliance with the permission requirement. Kumar failed to do so.

What this means for government employees

For every government servant who dreams of moving to a public sector undertaking or another government department, this judgment is a cold dose of reality. The default position under Rule 26 is forfeiture. The exception—preservation of pension—applies only when the employee follows the proper channel and obtains explicit permission.

Three practical takeaways:

• Permission must be granted, not just sought. Applying through proper channel is not enough. The competent authority must actually approve the application. If the application is returned or the NOC is refused, the employee cannot proceed without consequences.
• The resignation letter must be honest. Kumar's letter cited "unavoidable circumstances." It did not mention HAL. The Court treated this as a concealment. A resignation letter that hides the real reason for leaving can be used as evidence against the employee's claim for pension.
• The High Court's sympathy is not enough. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench were sympathetic to Kumar. They thought he had acted in good faith. But sympathy cannot override a clear statutory rule. The Supreme Court reversed both orders.

The bottom line

The Supreme Court allowed the Union's appeal, set aside the Division Bench judgment of 8 July 2011 and the Single Judge order of 18 February 2008, and directed the parties to bear their own costs. H.R. Vijaya Kumar will not receive pro rata pension for his 13 years of service in CISF.

For every government employee: if you resign without permission to take another job, your past service is forfeited. No exception. No sympathy. No pension.