The Full Bench judgment affirmed dismissal of the appellant's appeal for declaration of entitlement to pension and retiral benefits after resignation, based on forfeiture of service and lack of qualifying years.
The appeal was dismissed holding resignation forfeited service for pension claims due to insufficient qualifying years.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R.S.A.No.3134 of 1996
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A.No.3134 of 1996
Date of Decision : 14.05.2012
Shiv Sant Singh
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present: M/s Ashok Singla & Ravish Bansal, Advocates, for the appellant.
Mr. H.P.Verma, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondent.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby suit for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to gratuity and other retiral benefits was dismissed in appeal.
The plaintiff joined as Inspector Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab on 26.09.1952. On 03.12.1958, the plaintiff was promoted and posted as Assistant Consolidation Officer. He continued to work till 03.03.1965, when he was relieved on the basis of the acceptance of his resignation. Subsequently, the plaintiff brought the suit for declaration claiming pension the plaintiff claimed pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits for the reason that he has completed the qualifying service of more than 10 years, therefore, under Rule 6.16 of the Punjab Civil
R.S.A.No.3134 of 1996
2
Services Rules Vol.II, he is entitled to pension. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court. However, in first appeal, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The learned first Appellate Court relied upon Rule 7.5(1) to return a finding that resignation entails forfeiture of past service, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to pension.
Similar question came up before a Full Bench of this Court in RSA No.13 of 2009 titled "State of Haryana and others Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha Seth", wherein it has been held that the resignation by a Government servant entails forfeiture of past service and is not entitled to pension. It was held to the following effect:
" In our considered view, the benefit of Rule 6.16(2) certainly cannot be available to an individual who had severed his relationship with his/her employer by way of resignation. The aforesaid rule is applicable only to an individual who has retired from service. The benefit of Rule 6.16(2) aforementioned can, therefore, be availed of only by a person who retires on superannuation or invalid and compassionate grounds.
It is also necessary for us to make a reference to Rule 3.17A (d) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II, Part I, which has been noticed in the reference order. The instant rule has been the basis of denial of pensionary benefits to a government employee, who had resigned from service. The same is being extracted hereunder: -
“3.17A (d). Resignation from the public service or dismissal or removal from it for misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency, not due to age, or failure to pass a prescribed examination will entail forfeiture of past service in terms of Rule 4.19(1) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume II.”
A perusal of the aforesaid rule reveals, that a government servant, who resigns from service will forfeit his past service. In other words, the entire service rendered by an employee who has severed his relationship with his employer by virtue of his resignation, stands completely forfeited, and as such, cannot be made the basis of claiming
R.S.A.No.3134 of 1996
3
pensionary benefits.
The aforesaid stance of the government has to be resolved, in view of the conclusion expressed by us hereinabove, on the basis of Rule 5.32A(a) (extracted above). In our considered view, the aforesaid rule is not an absolute rule, inasmuch as, Rule 5.32A (a), extracted hereinabove, is an exception to the aforesaid rule. As such, a person who has qualifying service of a minimum of 30 years prior to tendering his resignation, will still be entitled to retiral benefits. The aforesaid retiral benefits at the discretion of the State government, can extend to an individual, who has 25 or more years of qualifying service. Rule 3.17A extracted above will, therefore, result in forfeiture of service (in a claim for pension) where the qualifying service rendered by a government employee is less than 25/30 years (as the case may be) as per Rule 5.32A (extracted above)."
In view of said fact, I do not find that any substantial
question of law arises for consideration by this Court.
Dismissed.
14.05.2012 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to pension and retiral benefits after resigning from service.
Whether Rule 5.32A(a) provides an exception to the forfeiture of past service upon resignation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha SethReferred¶20
RSA No.13 of 2009
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Shiv Sant Singh
State of Punjab
Hemant Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
