Former Punjab Clerk’s Pension Claim Fails After Resignation With Less Than 10 Years’ Regular Service: P&H HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner, who resigned after approximately eight years and ten months of regular service, was entitled to pensionary benefits under the applicable Punjab Civil Services Rules.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to pensionary benefits because he resigned and had completed only approximately eight years and ten months of regular service, less than the ten years required by Rule 6.16(1).

It also directed

The writ petition was dismissed, and any pending applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner served in the Punjab Irrigation Department in various posts and was appointed as a regular Clerk with effect from 29 January 1962.

p. 1

He resigned on 5 December 1970.

p. 1

The Court found that his regular service from appointment to resignation was approximately eight years and ten months; his earlier service was followed by termination and a gap before his regular appointment.

pp. 1–5

After seeking retiral benefits in 1993 and again in 2012, he was informed that departmental records had been destroyed in a fire.

pp. 2–3

The Accountant General rejected his pension claim in 2015 on the ground that he had resigned.

pp. 2–3

The petitioner challenged that rejection by writ petition in 2016.

pp. 1–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner, who resigned after approximately eight years and ten months of regular service, was entitled to pensionary benefits under the applicable Punjab Civil Services Rules.

pp. 4–6

ii.2. Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for delay and laches, given that the petitioner resigned in 1970 but filed the petition in 2016.

pp. 3–4

03Law Applied

Rule 7.5(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I provides that resignation from service or a post entails forfeiture of past service unless withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing authority.

p. 5

Rule 6.16(1) of Volume II provides that a government employee retiring under the Rules with fewer than ten years of qualifying service is not entitled to pension, though a service gratuity is payable.

p. 6

In Ghanshyam Dass Relhan v. State of Haryana, 2009 (14) SCC 506, the Supreme Court held, in the context of the applicable pension rules, that resignation does not qualify an employee for pension where the required qualifying service has not been completed; the Court also distinguished resignation from retirement on superannuation.

pp. 6–8

04Reasoning

The Court treated the petitioner’s regular service as beginning on 29 January 1962, when his pay was fixed as a regular Clerk, and ending on his resignation on 5 December 1970.

pp. 4–6

His earlier service did not bridge the intervening period after his services were terminated, and his regular service therefore fell short of the ten-year threshold in Rule 6.16(1).

pp. 4–6

Further, under Rule 7.5(1), his resignation entailed forfeiture of past service.

pp. 5–6

Applying Ghanshyam Dass Relhan, the Court concluded that the petitioner could not obtain pension by relying on a rule concerning retirement where he had resigned and had not completed the qualifying service.

pp. 5–8

Although the respondents raised delay and laches, the Court dismissed the petition on the merits and did not separately determine that objection.

pp. 3–4, 8