Can Resignation Due to Illness Be Treated as Voluntary Retirement? Madras High Court Answers

Resignation from service, even when tendered due to illness or medical incapacity, results in forfeiture of past service and cannot be treated as voluntary retirement for the purpose of pension, the Madras High Court recently ruled.

The bench comprising Justice S. M. Subramaniam, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, and Justice C. Kumarappan answered a reference made to resolve conflicting division bench judgments on the interpretation of Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which deals with forfeiture of service on resignation. Court held that the rule leaves no scope for carving out an exception for resignations submitted on medical grounds.

The reference arose from two writ petitions filed by former government employees who had resigned citing health reasons and later sought pensionary benefits by requesting that their resignations be treated as voluntary retirement. In both cases, authorities had rejected the claims on the ground that resignation entails forfeiture of past service.

While one earlier division bench had allowed pension in such circumstances, another had taken a contrary view, leading to uncertainty in service jurisprudence. The full bench was constituted to settle the issue authoritatively.

Examining Rule 23, court noted that the provision clearly states that resignation from service entails forfeiture of past service, with only one limited exception where resignation is submitted with proper permission to take up another qualifying government appointment. The rule, court observed, is silent on resignation due to ill health.

The bench held that when statutory language is clear and unambiguous, courts cannot introduce new grounds or carve out exceptions that the legislature has not provided for.

“Medical grounds is not an element of Rule 23,” court said, adding that the provision does not warrant any interpretative expansion.

The full bench rejected the argument that resignation on medical grounds should be treated differently by applying purposive interpretation or the mischief rule. It pointed out that the pension rules themselves contain specific provisions for cases of medical incapacity, including invalid pension, which applies where a government servant is permanently incapacitated while in service.

“If there is a specific provision designed to deal with a particular instance, there is no compelling need to forcefully read it into another provision contemplating a different instance,” court held.

Voluntary retirement, court noted, is a statutory right available only upon completion of prescribed qualifying service and carries pensionary benefits, while resignation is a unilateral act that ordinarily results in loss of such benefits.

Citing Supreme Court decisions including Senior Divisional Manager, LIC vs Shree Lal Meena, court emphasised that reclassifying a resignation as voluntary retirement would blur a well-settled distinction in service law and render pension rules nugatory.

The full bench further observed that under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, and earlier service rules, the consequences of resignation are clearly spelled out, and employees are deemed to be aware of these consequences at the time of entering service.

An employee who resigns, court said, cannot later seek to approbate and reprobate by claiming pensionary benefits contrary to the statutory scheme.

Answering the reference, the full bench held that resignation from service, regardless of the reason for which it is tendered, results in forfeiture of past service; that resignation on medical grounds is not an exception under Rule 23; and that resignation cannot be treated as voluntary retirement.

Court also expressly overruled the earlier division bench judgment that had allowed pension following resignation on medical grounds, while affirming the contrary view taken in subsequent decisions.

Court directed the matters to be placed before the regular bench for disposal in light of the settled legal position.

Case Title: Mr.D. Kaliyamoorthy vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Order Date: February 3, 2026

Bench: Justice S. M. Subramaniam, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, and Justice C. Kumarappan