Ram Sarup Gupta vs State Of Punjab And Ors

CWP-24007-2016 (O&M) - 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-24007-2016 (O&M)
Reserved on : 26.08.2026
Date of Pronouncement : 02.11.2026
Date of Uploading : 04.11.2026
Ram Sarup Gupta ......Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others ......Respondents
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO
Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present : Ms. Aarushi Garg, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab,
for the respondents.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to letter dated
12.08.2015 issued by respondent No.5, whereby the claim of the petitioner
for pensionary benefits has been rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case, as per pleadings, are that the petitioner
joined the service of the respondents-department on 03.09.1957 as a Tracer
in the office of the Superintending Engineer, U.B.D.C., Majitha and Jandiala
Circle, where he worked till 28.02.1959. Thereafter, he served as a Clerk in
the office of the Executive Engineer, Amritsar Drainage Division, Amritsar,
from 19.10.1959 to 30.12.1960 and subsequently he worked as Clerk from
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.11.04 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-24007-2016 (O&M) - 2 -
28.11.1961 to 17.05.1962 and 18.05.1962 to 05.12.1970 in the office of the
Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Mandal, Amritsar. His pay was
fixed at Rs.64/- per month with effect from 29.01.1962 (forenoon), the date
of his appointment as a regular Clerk, under Rule 4.4(b) of the Punjab Civil
Services Rules, Volume I, Part I. On 05.12.1970, the petitioner submitted
his resignation from service, which was accepted by the respondents, but no
pensionary benefits were released to him. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote a
letter dated 15.10.1993 to respondent No.4 seeking release of his pensionary
benefits, which was forwarded to the respondent No.3 i.e. Sub-Divisional
Officer, Irrigation Wing, for necessary action. However, no action was taken
on the said representation. On 18.09.2012, the petitioner again approached
respondent No.4 for consideration of his claim. In response thereto,
respondent No.4-Executive Engineer, Amritsar Drainage Division, Amritsar,
informed him through a letter dated 26.11.2012 that the departmental record
had been destroyed in fire, which took place on 17/18.07.1997 and requested
him to furnish the available service record. On 06.05.2012/06.12.2012,
petitioner submitted all the documents available with him, including his
G.P.F. Account No. 16179, a copy of his representation dated 15.10.1993
and salary bills received from the respondent-department. Thereafter, the
respondents forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Accountant General,
Punjab, for consideration of his claim for pensionary benefits. Vide letter
dated 12.08.2015, respondent No.5-Accountant General, Punjab, observed
that pensionary benefits were not admissible to the petitioner as he had
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.11.04 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-24007-2016 (O&M) - 3 -
resigned from service and suggested that the matter could be taken up with
the Finance Department, Punjab. Thereafter, petitioner wrote another letter
dated 29.10.2015 to respondent No.4-Executive Engineer, Amritsar
Drainage Division, Amritsar, and contested the objection raised by the
Accountant General, Punjab. Subsequently, on 16.03.2016, the Executive
Engineer, Amritsar Drainage Division, Amritsar, forwarded the judgments
supplied by the petitioner to the Superintending Engineer for consideration.
The petitioner claims that despite the representations made by him and the
judgments relied upon, the respondents have not released the claimed
pensionary benefits. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
resigned from service after rendering more than 12 years of service; but he
has not been granted pensionary benefits. She further contends that the
impugned order is dated 12.08.2015 and the present writ petition was filed in
the year 2016; therefore, there is no delay in filing the present writ petition.
She also contends that the impugned order dated 12.08.2015 has wrongly
been passed. In support of her contentions, she places reliance upon the
judgments passed by this Court in RSA-5550-2003 , titled as ‘Ram Lal
Prabhakar Vs. State of Punjab and others’ , decided on 11.11.2024; RSA-
560-2006 , titled as ‘School Managing Committee and another Vs. Asha
Awasthi’ , decided on 08.11.2024; CWP-13162-2008 , titled as ‘Gulab
Singh Vs. The State of Haryana and another ’, decided on 18.03.2010;
CWP-21475-2021 , titled as ‘ Pankaj Mehta Vs. Punjab and Haryana
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.11.04 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-24007-2016 (O&M) - 4 -
High Court at Chandigarh and another’ , decided on 25.05.2026; and
LPA-95-2011 , titled as ‘Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited Vs.
Saroj Bakshi and others’ , decided on 15.07.2015. She, therefore, prays
that the present writ petition be allowed.
4. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefits, as he himself resigned from
service. She further submits that the petitioner resigned on 05.12.1970,
whereas the present writ petition was filed in the year 2016, and there is a
delay in filing the present writ petition, therefore, the present writ petition is
liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. In support of her
contentions, she places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Ghanshyam Dass Relhan Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2009
(14) SCC 506 , as well as the judgments passed by this Court in RSA-2995-
2008 , titled as ‘ State of Haryana and others Vs. Bishamber Nath
Bhutani’ , decided on 06.05.2026, and RSA-13-2009 , titled as ‘ State of
Haryana and others Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha Seth’ , decided on 18.09.2009.
She, therefore, prays that the present writ petition be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole file of this case with their able assistance.
6. A perusal of file shows that the petitioner was engaged as Clerk
in the year 1959 and he worked from 19.10.1959 to 30.12.1960. Thereafter,
his services were terminated. He was again appointed as regular Clerk in the
year 1962. As per pleadings itself, the petitioner submitted his resignation
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.11.04 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-24007-2016 (O&M) - 5 -
on 05.12.1970. A perusal of file further shows that previously the petitioner
was not appointed as regular Clerk and he worked till 30.12.1960 when his
services were terminated. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.07.1962, his pay
was fixed w.e.f. 29.01.1962 i.e. the date of his appointment as regular Clerk.
Therefore, he regularly worked for a period of approximately 08 years 10
months from the date he was appointed as regular Clerk till his resignation.
This shows that there was a gap of two years after his termination till he was
regularly appointed. A perusal of the file further shows that after his
resignation in the year 1970, he approached the respondent for the first time
on 15.10.1993 for retiral benefits. A perusal of the impugned order shows
that the claim of the petitioner for pensionary benefits was rejected on the
ground that since the petitioner resigned from service, therefore, he would
not be entitled to pensionary benefits.
7. It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant provisions of the
Punjab Civil Services Rules, the same are reproduced as under:-
Rule 7.5(1) of Punjab Civil Services Rules (Vol. 1 Part 1)
7.5 (1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed
to be withdrawn in public interest by the appointing authority,
entails forfeiture of past service.
A perusal of the above shows that by resignation from service,
past service is forfeited.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.11.04 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-24007-2016 (O&M) - 6 -
Rule 6.16(1) of Punjab Civil Services Rules (Vol. 2 Chapter
VI)
6.16. A Government employee retiring in accordance with the
provisions of these rules before completing the qualifying
service of ten years shall not be entitled to any pension but he
shall be entitled to a service gratuity calculated at the uniform
rate of half month’s emoluments for every completed six
monthly period of service.
A bare reading of above reproduced rule shows that the
Government employee is entitled to pensionary benefits on retirement and
that too after completing qualifying service of ten years, whereas, in the
present case, the petitioner has resigned from service after completing
approximately 08 years and 10 months service.
8. Now coming to the judgments referred to by learned counsel for
the petitioner. The said judgments are not applicable and are distinguishable
from the facts of the present case.
9. Now coming to the judgments referred to by learned counsel for
the respondents-State. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Dass
Relhan’s case (supra) held that a government employee is not entitled to
pensionary benefits if he does not complete the qualifying service. The
relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced as under:-
“17. As far as Rule 4.19(b) is concerned it is quite clear
that resignation to take up with proper permission
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.11.04 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-24007-2016 (O&M) - 7 -
another appointment, would have to be in a service,
which would count towards pension in Government
service. It means that the subsequent appointment must
also be in public service and in such a case the
resignation would not amount to resignation of public
service. In such a case, continuity in public service would
be accepted in computing the qualifying service of 30
years for grant of pension. It is a provision similar to
Rule 4.19(b) which was relied upon by the Division
Bench of the Calcutta High Court in deciding the case of
Dr. Sajal Kanti Chakraborty (supra), and distinguishes
the said case from the facts of this case.
18. As far as Rule 6.16(2) is concerned, in our view,
the same cannot be divided into two separate
compartments as has been suggested by Mr. Dholakia.
The second part of the said Rule is a consequence of the
first part, which deals with retirement upon
superannuation and not resignation, as in the instant
case. In order to be eligible for pension the Government
employee at the time of superannuation would have to
complete qualifying service of not less than 33 years or
more. However, an exception has been made in the
second part of the said Rule which also allows the benefit
of pro- rata pension to employees who had rendered 10
years service or more. In our view, not having
superannuated from Government service, the petitioner
cannot come within the said category and as submitted
by Mr. Patwalia, his case would instead be governed by
Rule 5.32-A, which deals with resignation.
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.11.04 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-24007-2016 (O&M) - 8 -
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.
20. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the
judgment of the High Court and the Special Leave
Petition is, therefore, dismissed, but without any order as
to costs.”
10. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, as
referred to above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ
petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed .
11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
02.11.2026
Virender
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI
2026.11.04 16:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document