Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the State of Rajasthan's refusal to count the Respondent's service tenure from 13 January 1967 to 12 April 1977, during which he worked for the Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board and Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation, for calculating his pension and retiral benefits upon retirement on 30 April 2003 as Additional Director of Industries. The Respondent had initially been appointed as Assistant Charge Man in 1967, transferred to the Corporation in 1970, and later resigned to take up appointment as Assistant Director (Agro-Industries) in the Department of Industries after selection through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in 1977. After representations were denied, he filed a writ petition in 2009, which was allowed by a Single Judge in 2017, directing counting of past service and release of pension with interest. The State's appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench in 2019, leading to this Special Leave Petition. The core legal issue was whether Rule 25(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, which provides that resignation does not entail forfeiture of past service if submitted with proper permission to take up another government appointment, applied to the Respondent's case. The Petitioners argued that resignation entails forfeiture, the writ petition was delayed, and there was no proof of prior permission. The Respondent contended that the service was pensionable and the resignation was for a government post through proper channels. The Court analyzed Rule 25, noting the exception in sub-rule (2) for resignations with proper permission for another government appointment. It upheld the High Court's concurrent factual finding that the Respondent resigned with proper permission, as he was selected through RPSC for a government post, and deemed prior permission presumed unless disproven by the State. The Court also held that pension rules should be interpreted in favour of employees, arbitrariness violates equality rights, and delay does not bar relief under Article 226 as denial of pension is a continuing wrong. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, refusing to interfere under Article 136, and upheld the High Court's order to count past service for pension.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pension - Counting of Past Service After Resignation - Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, Rule 25(2) - Respondent resigned from Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation to take up appointment as Assistant Director (Agro-Industries) in Department of Industries after selection through RPSC - High Court held service with Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board and Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation was pensionable and liable to be counted under Rule 25(2) as resignation was with proper permission for another government appointment - Supreme Court upheld this finding, stating it does not call for interference under Article 136 (Paras 14-19). B) Service Law - Pension - Interpretation of Pension Rules - Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 - When financial rules like Pension Rules are capable of multiple interpretations, courts should lean towards interpretation favouring the employee - This principle supports counting past service for pension benefits (Para 28). C) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Arbitrariness and Equality - Constitution of India, Articles 14 to 16 - State's stand that past service should be forfeited was argued to be arbitrary and unreasonable - Court noted arbitrariness violates right to equality under Articles 14 to 16, implying such denial could be unconstitutional (Para 22). D) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Limitation - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petitioner argued Writ Petition was filed after six years - Court held laws of limitation do not apply to Article 226 jurisdiction, and denial of pension is a continuing wrong, justifying consideration despite delay (Paras 26-27). E) Constitutional Law - Supreme Court Jurisdiction - Discretionary Power Under Article 136 - Constitution of India, Article 136 - Power under Article 136 is discretionary and not a regular forum of appeal - Court declined to interfere with concurrent factual findings of High Court under this residual provision (Paras 19, 29-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether service rendered by the Respondent prior to resignation from Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation should be counted for pension purposes under Rule 25 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upheld the High Court's judgment and order dated 28 November 2019, and directed counting of Respondent's service from 13 January 1967 to 12 April 1977 for pension and retiral benefits with interest @ 9% p.a.
Law Points
- Resignation with proper permission to take up another government appointment does not entail forfeiture of past service under Rule 25(2) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules
- 1996
- Pension rules should be interpreted in favour of the employee when capable of multiple interpretations
- Arbitrariness violates the right to equality under Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India
- Denial of pension is a continuing wrong
- Laws of limitation do not apply to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
