Jagtaran Singh Malhotra v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Bench decision of this Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Dr. (Mrs.)Sudha Seth in R.S.A. No.13 of 2009 decided on 18.9.2009. The question of law that was referred to consideration for Full Bench was:- “Whether a Government employee on resignation forfeits his past service for purposes of pensionary benefits?” Rule 5.32-A (a) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, Part I and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ghanshyam Dass Relhan Vs. State of Haryana, 2007 (1) SCR 159 were cited before the Full Bench and also the fact that the decision in Ghanshyam Dass Relhan's case (supra) was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while upholding Regular Second Appeal No.3245 of 2008 (O&M) : 3 : the view of this Court has held as under in a case reported as Ghanshyam Dass Relhan Vs. State of Haryana, 2009 (2) SCT 617:- “19. The said Rule clearly provides that a Government employee is entitled on his resignation being accepted to a retiring pension subject to his completing qualifying service of not less than 30 years which in special cases could be reduced to 25 years. Since the petitioner has not completed the qualifying service of 30 years and since the service rendered by him with the Bank would not be counted towards Government service, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of pension under Rule 6.16 (2) and the High Court has rightly decided the issue.” The Full Bench accordingly observed that this case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16.7.2009 apparently was not brought to the notice of the Bench of this Court, which had made reference to the Full Bench. The Court accordingly observed that the case has now necessarily to be disposed of in terms of Ghanshyam Dass Relhan's case (supra). The Full Bench also thought it appropriate to deal with Rule 6.16 (2) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, which was repeatedly made the basis for claim for pensionary benefits by Government employees, who had resigned from the service on completion of qualifying service in excess of 10 years. The Rule 6.16 (2) may be reproduced for ready reference:- “6.16 (2). In the case of a Government employee retiring on or after the Ist April, 1979, in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying Regular Second Appeal No.3245 of 2008 (O&M) : 4 : service of not less than thirty-three years or more, the amount of superannuation retiring, invalid and compassionate pensions shall be 50% of average emoluments as defined in rule 6.19C of these rules subject to a maximum of Rs.3,000/- 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 such the qualifying service of thirty-three years, subject to a minimum of Rs.375/- per mensem.” It was on the basis of this Rule that the employees used to stake their claims for grant of pensionary benefits, even after resigning from the service. The Hon'ble Full Bench has taken a clear view that benefit of this Rule is not available to an individual who had severed his relationship with his/her employer by way of resignation. This Rule was held applicable only to individual who had retired from service. It is accordingly held that benefit of this Rule can be availed only by a person who retires on superannuation or on invalid and compassionate grounds. The Full Bench also made reference to Rule 3.17 A (d) of Punjab Civil Service Rules, which was the basis for denying the claim for pension of the employees in such cases. This Rule provides that a Government servant who resigns from service will forfeit his past service. It is accordingly observed that the entire service rendered by an employee who had severed his relationship with his employer by Regular Second Appeal No.3245 of 2008 (O&M) : 5 : virtue of resignation would stand completely forfeited and as such, can not be made basis for claiming pensionary benefits. In fact, the Full Bench has accordingly answered this reference primarily in view of the settled position of law in this regard as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshayam Dass Relhan's case (supra). The counsel for the State in Ghanshayam Dass Relhan's case (supra) has placed reliance on the case of Union of India Vs. Rakesh Kumar, 2001 (4) SCC 309, where similar Rules were under consideration. Analyzing the provisions of Rule 48 (a) and 49 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 in conjunction with the provisions of B.S.F. Rules, 1969, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a view that in the event of a Government servant retiring before completing the period of qualifying service for pension, he would be entitled to gratuity, which was to be calculated at a half month's emoluments for every completed six months qualifying service. Reference was also made to the judgment in the case of Reserve Bank of India Vs. Cecil Dennis Solomon and another, 2004 (9) SCC 461, where benefit of voluntary retirement which was equated with resignation by the High Court was held to be erroneous since it did not fall within the definition of retirement contemplated under the R.B.I Regulations, 1948. UCO Bank Vs. Sanwar Mal, 2004 (4) SCC 412, was also referred to where the difference between words resignation and retirement were noticed and explained. It was observed that two expression carried different meaning in common parlance. An employee could resign at any time but in the case of retirement he could retire only upon attaining the age of Regular Second Appeal No.3245 of 2008 (O&M) : 6 : superannuation or in the case of voluntary retirement, on completion of qualifying service. Having considered these submissions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshayam Dass Relhan's case (supra) observed as under:- “In our view, Rule 4.19 (a) has to be read and understood differently from what has been urged by Mr.Dholakia. The expression `resignation from public service' will have to be read disjunctively from `dismissal or removal from it. The expression 'resignation from public service' will not be qualified by the subsequent references relating to anti- national activities. On the other hand, the expression 'dismissal of removal from it will be qualified by the said expression which would in both cases entail forfeiture of past service and disqualification so far as payment of pension is concerned. In other words, read disjunctively, resignation simpliciter from public service would entail forfeiture of past service and no pension is to be granted in the aforesaid circumstances.” Ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as “The said Rule clearly provides that a Government employee is entitled on his resignation being accepted to a retiring pension subject to his completing qualifying service of not less than 30 years which in special cases could be reduced to 25 years. Since the petitioner has not completed the qualifying service of 30 years and since the service rendered by him with the Bank would not be under:- Regular Second Appeal No.3245 of 2008 (O&M) : 7 : counted towards Government service, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of pension under Rule 6.16(2) and the High Court has rightly decided the issue.” In view of the above, the prayer made in the Regular Second Appeal cannot be granted as the question of law has been finally settled. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. May 06, 2010 ramesh ( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE