STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus GURBARAN SINGH on 1 March 2019

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

v.

GURBARAN SINGH(Civil Appeal No. 2411 of 2019)

MARCH 01, 2019

[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]

Service Law:

Pensionary benefits – Claim of – Respondent working aspharmacist in the State Health Services on regular basis, tenderedhis resignation – Acceptance of resignation, however respondentnot granted pension and service benefits but only gratuity andProvident Fund – Suit by respondent seeking pensionary benefits –Suit decreed and issuance of direction to the appellant to paypensionary benefits – Said order upheld by courts below – Onappeal, held: In case of resignation from service or a post, unlessthe matter was covered u/r.26(2) of the Central Civil Service(Pension) Rules, it would entail forfeiture of past service – Sincethe past service would stand forfeited, the same would be excludedfrom the period of qualifying service, and as such for deciding theentitlement to pension, the employee would not have the qualifyingperiod of service – Thus, the order passed by the courts below is setaside – However, amount made over to respondent would not berecovered from him – Punjab Civil Services Rules – r. 7.5(1) – CentralCivil Service (Pension) Rules – r. 26.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 In case of resignation from service or a post,unless the matter was covered under Rule 26(2) of the CentralCivil Service (Pension) Rules, it would entail forfeiture of pastservice. Since the past service would stand forfeited, the samewould be excluded from the period of qualifying service, and assuch for deciding the question of entitlement to pension, theemployee would not have the qualifying period of service.[Para 9][843-B, C]

839

A

B

C

DE

F

G

840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A1.2 The counsel for the appellant is absolutely right on thescope and interpretation of Rule 7.5(1) of the Rules. Therespondent did not seriously contest the matter on the scopeand interpretation of Rule 7.5(1) of the Rules. The judgment andorder passed by the High Court is set aside and the suit isdismissed. The amount made over to the respondent in May,B2018, after the judgment of the High Court, would not berecovered from him, but no further payments would be releasedor paid to the respondent. [Paras 10, 11][843-D-G]

Union of India and others v. Braj Nandan Singh (2005)8 SCC 325 : [2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 356 - referred to.

CCase Law Reference

[ 2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 356referred toPara 6CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2411of 2019.

DFrom the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2017 of the High Courtof Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular SecondAppeal No. 1576 of 2015.

Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Advs. for theAppellants.EKumar Shashank, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Vishal Prasad, Advs. forthe Respondent.

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 31.08.2017Fpassed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RegularSecond Appeal No.1576 of 2015.

3. The respondent was appointed as a pharmacist by the DirectorHealth Services, Punjab on 05.09.1975 in the pay-scale of Rs.140-6-1030 on regular basis. During his tenure the respondent was posted atGvarious districts. While being posted at Ferozepur, he tendered hisresignation by letter dated 27.06.1986. The resignation was acceptedby the Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Muktsar, Punjab. The respondent,thereafter, filed various representations contending that he was entitledto pension and service benefits but was granted only gratuity and GeneralProvident Fund.

H

H

4. The respondent being aggrieved by non grant of pension, filedCivil Suit No.74 of 2009 claiming pensionary benefits in respect of servicerendered by him. Since the appellants failed to file written statement,their defense was struck off. On 16.11.2012 the Civil Judge, SeniorDivision, Bathinda, decreed the suit and directed the appellants to pay tothe respondent pensionary benefits with interest @ 9% per annum fromthe date of decree.

5. The decision of the Trial Court was appealed against by theappellants by filing Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2013 before the AdditionalDistrict Judge, Bathinda, which also came to be dismissed on 23.12.2014.The judgments rendered by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court werechallenged by filing Second Appeal No.1576 of 2015 in the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. It was submitted by the appellantthat the matter was covered by Rule 7.5(1) of the Punjab Civil ServicesRules, Volume-I, Part-I (for short ‘the Rules’) in terms of which noretiral benefits would be admissible to an employee who resigned fromservice. The submission was rejected and the High Court dismissed saidSecond Appeal on 31.08.2017. The view taken by the High Court ispresently under challenge.

6. We have heard Ms. Uttara Babbar, learned advocate for theState and Mr. Kumar Shashank, learned advocate for the respondent.Ms. Babbar relied upon the decision of this Court in Union of Indiaand others vs. Braj Nandan Singh[1], which considered Rule 26 of theCentral Civil Service (Pension) Rules (‘CCS Rules’ for short) and heldthat resignation from service would entail forfeiture of past service.7. Sub-Rules (1) and (2) of Rule 7.5 of the Rules which arerelevant for the present purposes are to the following effect:- “7.5 (1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowedto be withdrawn in public interest by the appointing authority, entailsforfeiture of past service.

(2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it hasbeen submitted to take up, with proper permission, anotherappointment, whether temporary or permanent, under theGovernment where service qualifies for pension.”

8. In Braj Nandan Singh[1]a pari materia provision viz. Rule 26of CCS Rules came up for consideration. Para 5 of the decision was asunder:- A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

“5. In order to appreciate rival submissions Rule 26 which is thepivotal provision needs to be quoted. The same reads as under:

“26. Forfeiture of service on resignation.—(1) Resignationfrom a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn inthe public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeitureof past service.

(2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if ithas been submitted to take up, with proper permission, anotherappointment, whether temporary or permanent, under theGovernment where service qualifies.”

Rule 26 as the heading itself shows relates to forfeiture of serviceon resignation. In clear terms it provides that resignation from aservice or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the publicinterest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service.The language is couched in mandatory terms. However, sub-rule(2) is in the nature of an exception. It provides that resignationshall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted totake up, with proper permission, another appointment, whethertemporary or permanent, under the Government where servicequalifies. Admittedly this is not the case in the present appeal.Rule 5 on which great emphasis was laid down by the learnedcounsel for the respondent deals with regulation of claims topension or family pension. Qualifying service is dealt with inChapter III. The conditions subject to which service qualifies areprovided in Rule 14. Chapter V deals with classes of pensionsand conditions governing their grant. The effect of Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) cannot be lost sight of while deciding the questionof entitlement to pension. The High Court was not justified in itsconclusion that the rule was being torn out of context. After thepast service is forfeited the same has to be excluded from theperiod of qualifying service. The language of Rule 26 sub-rules(1) and (2) is very clear and unambiguous. It is trite law that allthe provisions of a statute have to be read together and no particularprovision should be treated as superfluous. That being the positionafter the acceptance of resignation, in terms of Rule 26 sub-rule(1) the past service stands forfeited. That being so, it has to beheld that for the purpose of deciding question of entitlement topension the respondent did not have the qualifying period of service. There is no substance in the plea of the learned counselfor the respondent that Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) has limitedoperation and does not wipe out entitlement to pension as quantifiedin Rule 49. The said rule deals with amount of pension and notwith entitlement.”

A

9. It was thus clearly laid down that in case of resignation fromservice or a post, unless the matter was covered under Sub-Rule 2 ofRule 26 of CCS Rules, it would entail forfeiture of past service. Sincethe past service would stand forfeited, the same would be excludedfrom the period of qualifying service, and as such for deciding the questionof entitlement to pension, the employee would not have the qualifyingperiod of service.

B

C

10. We see force in the submission advanced by Ms. Babbar,learned advocate for the appellant. She is absolutely right on the scopeand interpretation of Rule 7.5(1) of the Rules and the decision reliedupon completely supports her submissions. Mr. Kumar Shashank, learnedadvocate for the respondent did not seriously contest the matter on thescope and interpretation of Rule 7.5(1) of the Rules, and finally submittedthat whatever monetary benefits the respondent had received in termsof the orders passed by the courts below may not be recovered fromhim. We are given to understand that in May, 2018 i.e. after the judgmentof the High Court, which is presently under appeal, an amount ofRs.3,94,474.89 was made over to the respondent.

D

E

11. Considering the totality of the circumstances we direct:- a)This appeal stands allowed. The judgment and order dated31.08.2017 passed by the High Court is set aside andCivil Suit No.74 of 2009 filed by the respondent before theFCivil Judge, Senior Division, Bathinda stands dismissed.

b)The amount which was made over to the respondent inMay, 2018, as aforesaid, shall not be recovered from therespondent, but no further payments shall be released orpaid to the respondent.

G

c)This appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

d)No costs.

Nidhi Jain

Appeal disposed of.

H