The Court rejected a petition seeking pensionary benefits for resigned employees. Ruling that resignation forfeits service under applicable rules, the Court held that benefits under Rule 6.16(2) apply only to retired employees and distinguished a prior contrary decision.
Petition dismissed seeking direction to grant pensionary benefits to petitioners.
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.
CM No.19381 of 2008 & CWP No.17005 of 2003
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CM No.19381 of 2008 & CWP No.17005 of 2003 Date of Decision : 24.08.2012
Lakha Singh & others
... Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana & others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
CM No.19381 of 2008
Prayer in the application is for early hearing of the case.
With the consent of both the parties, the main writ petition is taken on Board.
CM stands disposed of.
Main Case
Petitioners have approached this Court praying for writ of mandamus directing respondents to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioners as they have prior to their resignation served for more than 10 years in the Education Department.
Counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance on Rule 6.16(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume 2, Part I as applicable to the State of Haryana submits that the petitioners are entitled to grant of pensionary benefits under the said rules as the
CM No.19381 of 2008 & CWP No.17005 of 2003
-2-
qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits is 10 years. Merely because the petitioners have resigned from the service does not weaken their claim for pensionary benefits as per the Rule 6.16(2). Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of this Court in CWP No.1126 of 1998 titled as Mehar Singh vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 03.12.2002 (Annexure P-2) wherein such relief has been granted. Accordingly, prayer has been made for the present petition to be allowed by granting retiral benefits.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has stated that as per Rule 7.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume 2, Part I, as applicable to the State of Haryana, on submission of a resignation an employee is not entitled to the benefits of service as it amounts to forfeiture of the same. His further contention is that Rule 6.16(2) of the Civil Services Rules are applicable only in the case of superannuation or retirement whereas the petitioners have neither superannuated nor they have retired from service and therefore, are not entitled to the benefit as claimed by them. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the writ on this ground.
I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record of the case.
Rule 6.16(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume 2, Part I as applicable to the State of Haryana reads as follows:
“6.16(2) In the case of a government employee retiring on or after the 1st April 1979, in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than thirty three years or more, the amount of superannuation, retiring, invalid and
CM No.19381 of 2008 & CWP No.17005 of 2003
-3-
compassionate pensions shall be 50% of average emoluments as defined in rule 6.19-C of these rules subject to a maximum of Rs.3800/- per mensem. However, in the case of a government employee who at the time of retirement has rendered qualifying service of ten years or more but less than thirty three years, the amount of pension shall be such proportion of the maximum admissible pension as the qualifying service rendered by him bears to the maximum qualifying service of thirty three years, subject to a minimum of Rs.375/per mensem. xxxxxx”
A perusal of the above Rule would show that the benefit of pension and other benefits would be applicable only to those employees, who superannuate or retire after completion of minimum 10 years of service. Since the Rule itself lays down that it is on superannuation or retirement of an employee, who completed minimum 10 years of service, such benefit can be granted to him, the claim of the petitioners as made in the present petition relying on the said Rule is misplaced. In the light of the Rule 7.5 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, as applicable to the State of Haryana, on resignation the service rendered by an employee stands forfeited and therefore, the claim as made by the petitioners on this ground also can not be sustained. The judgment passed by this Court in Mehar Singh's case (supra) being contrary to the statutory rules and the mandate therein cannot be made applicable in the present petition for claiming the benefit, which the statutory rules do not permit and therefore, the same cannot be treated as a binding precedent to be followed. The statutory rules are to be given preference and adhered to unless they are ultra vires the constitution. The Court in the exercise of writ
CM No.19381 of 2008 & CWP No.17005 of 2003
-4-
jurisdiction should not travel beyond the statutory rules and give such benefit which is not in consonance thereof.
I find no merit in the present petition and therefore, the
same stands dismissed.
24.08. 2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) sonia JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a government employee who has resigned is entitled to pensionary benefits under Rule 6.16(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules?
Whether resignation results in forfeiture of service benefits under Rule 7.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mehar Singh vs. State of Punjab and othersDistinguished¶32
Mehar Singh vs. State of Punjab and others
Mehar Singh vs. State of Punjab and othersDistinguished¶24
CWP No.1126 of 1998
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Lakha Singh & others
State of Haryana & others
Augustine George Masih
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
