The Delhi High Court has held that a government employee who resigns from service cannot claim gratuity if their service conditions are governed by statutory pension rules that treat resignation as forfeiture of past service.
A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed a petition filed by a former Post Graduate Teacher (History) of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), who sought gratuity after resigning from service due to health issues. The Court ruled that the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules apply to KVS employees and clearly state that resignation leads to loss of past service benefits.
Read also:- Madras High Court Acquits Man in POCSO Case, Says Failure to Prove Victim’s Age Fatally Weakens Prosecution
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Vimla Singh, was appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher (History) in a Kendriya Vidyalaya school on 9 July 1995. She served continuously for more than thirteen years.
Due to chronic back pain and prolonged ill health, she submitted her resignation on 18 August 2008. The resignation was later accepted by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan in April 2009 with effect from the same date.
After leaving service, she sought payment of retiral benefits including gratuity and pension. However, the authorities declined the request. They relied on Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, which states that resignation results in forfeiture of past service.
The teacher then approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The authority directed payment of gratuity in her favour in 2012. This order was challenged by the KVS before the Delhi High Court and the matter remained pending.
Meanwhile, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking pension and questioning the validity of the relevant rule. The Tribunal dismissed her plea in May 2023, and later rejected her review application as well.
She subsequently filed the present writ petition before the Delhi High Court.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, an employee who has completed at least five years of continuous service is entitled to gratuity even in cases of resignation.
She pointed out that she had served for more than thirteen years and therefore met the eligibility requirement.
Her counsel further argued that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, and its internal rules cannot override a parliamentary statute like the Payment of Gratuity Act.
According to her, any rule that deprives an employee of accrued benefits after completing qualifying service would be inconsistent with the law.
Respondent’s Stand
The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan argued that its employees are governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, which specifically regulate pension and gratuity.
The organisation contended that the petitioner had opted for the GPF-cum-pension scheme at the time of joining service and had accepted the applicability of those rules.
Under Rule 26 of the pension rules, resignation automatically results in forfeiture of past service. Therefore, once the resignation was accepted, no qualifying service remained for pensionary benefits.
Court’s Observations
The High Court examined whether the petitioner could invoke the Payment of Gratuity Act.
The Bench noted that the definition of “employee” under Section 2(e) of the Act excludes persons who hold posts under the government and are governed by other rules providing for payment of gratuity.
The Court found that the service conditions of KVS employees are regulated by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, which already contain provisions relating to gratuity.
“The entitlement to pension and gratuity flowed from the CCS Pension Rules and not independently under the Payment of Gratuity Act,” the Court observed.
It further clarified that once statutory rules governing gratuity apply, an employee cannot simultaneously claim benefits under another statutory scheme.
The Bench also referred to Supreme Court decisions which have held that resignation under the CCS Pension Rules results in automatic forfeiture of past service.
Court’s Decision
After examining the statutory framework and the relevant precedents, the High Court concluded that the Payment of Gratuity Act did not apply to the petitioner.
Since she had resigned from service and was governed by the CCS Pension Rules, her past service stood forfeited under Rule 26.
The Court held that the Central Administrative Tribunal had correctly applied the law and committed no error in rejecting her claim.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal’s orders and dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Vimla Singh (Ex PGT History) v. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
Case No.: W.P.(C) 14081/2023
Decision Date: 25 February 2026
