Case Note & Summary
The respondent, Gurbaran Singh, was appointed as a pharmacist by the Director Health Services, Punjab on 05.09.1975 on a regular basis. During his tenure, he was posted at various districts, and while at Ferozepur, he tendered his resignation by letter dated 27.06.1986, which was accepted by the Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Muktsar, Punjab. Subsequently, the respondent filed representations claiming entitlement to pension and service benefits, but was granted only gratuity and General Provident Fund. Aggrieved by the non-grant of pension, he filed Civil Suit No.74 of 2009 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bathinda, seeking pensionary benefits for his service. The appellants failed to file a written statement, leading to their defense being struck off. On 16.11.2012, the Trial Court decreed the suit and directed the appellants to pay pensionary benefits with interest at 9% per annum from the date of decree. The appellants appealed to the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, in Civil Appeal No.2 of 2013, which was dismissed on 23.12.2014. They then filed Regular Second Appeal No.1576 of 2015 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, arguing that Rule 7.5(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I disentitled the respondent to retiral benefits upon resignation. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 31.08.2017. The State of Punjab and others appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard arguments from both sides. The appellants relied on Union of India v. Braj Nandan Singh, which interpreted Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, a pari materia provision, holding that resignation forfeits past service. The respondent's counsel did not seriously contest the interpretation of Rule 7.5(1) but submitted that monetary benefits already received by the respondent should not be recovered. The Supreme Court found force in the appellants' submission, allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and dismissed the suit. However, considering the totality of circumstances, the Court directed that the amount of Rs.3,94,474.89 paid to the respondent in May 2018 shall not be recovered, but no further payments shall be made. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pension - Forfeiture of Past Service on Resignation - Rule 7.5(1) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I - The respondent resigned from service and claimed pensionary benefits. The Supreme Court held that resignation entails forfeiture of past service unless covered by the exception in Rule 7.5(2), and thus the respondent did not have qualifying service for pension. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and dismissed the suit, but directed that amounts already paid to the respondent shall not be recovered. (Paras 6-11) B) Service Law - Pension - Pari Materia Provision - Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules - The Court relied on Union of India v. Braj Nandan Singh, which interpreted Rule 26 of CCS Rules, holding that resignation forfeits past service and excludes it from qualifying service for pension. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether resignation from service under Rule 7.5(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I entails forfeiture of past service and disentitles an employee to pensionary benefits.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; Civil Suit No.74 of 2009 dismissed; amount of Rs.3,94,474.89 already paid not to be recovered; no further payments to be made; no costs.
Law Points
- Resignation from service entails forfeiture of past service unless covered by exception
- Pension entitlement requires qualifying service
- Rule 7.5(1) of Punjab Civil Services Rules is pari materia with Rule 26 of CCS Rules
