Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. In this case, the grievance of the petitioner is that though he rendered service in the office of this Court for 15 years 3 months and 20 days, whereafer he resigned, he has not been paid his pensionary benefits. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No.3 to 5, who are Officers in the Registry of this Court. In the said counter affidavit the fact that the petitioner rendered service for the aforesaid period has been admitted. It has, however, been stated that the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 22-5-1970 and a departmental proceeding was started against him for absenting himself from duty without submission of application for leave and obtaining permission. Further, it is stated that by order dated 5-1-1971, the period of suspension undergone by him from 22-5-1970 till 5-1-1971 was ordered to be treated as a period not on duty. It was also been stated that since the petitioner resigned from the post, no pensionary benefit is admissible to him in view of the provisions contained in rule 101 (a) of the Bihar Pension Rules (in short the Rules) which provides that resignation of the public servant entails forfeiture of past service. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the reliefs prayed for in this writ-petition are not tenable in law. 3. Mr. Jha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Rule 101 of the Rules is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is submitted by him that the resignation of the petitioner was not on account of any misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency not due to age, or failure to pass a prescribed examination which entails forfeiture of past service. 4. I am unable to accept the said submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Rule 101 of the Rules reads as follows: "101 (a) Resignation of the public service or dismissal or removal from it for misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency not due to age, or failure to pass a prescribed examination entails forfeiture of past service. (b) Resignation of an appointment [with the approval of the appointing authority] to take up another appointment, service in which counts, is not a resignation of the public service. " 5. Clause (a) of Rule 101 of the rules, in my opinion, is very much attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (b) Resignation of an appointment [with the approval of the appointing authority] to take up another appointment, service in which counts, is not a resignation of the public service. " 5. Clause (a) of Rule 101 of the rules, in my opinion, is very much attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner was placed under suspension and a departmental proceeding was also started against him for absenting himself from duty without submission of application for leave and obtaining permission. However, it appears that during the said proceeding the petitioner resigned. Thus, in my opinion, it is difficult to hold that the said resignation was not on account of any of the ground mentioned in clause (a ). However, even otherwise the case of the petitioner cannot be held to be not covered by the said provision. The resignation of the public service and dismissal or removal from it on the grounds mentioned therein have to be read disjunctively. Besides dismissal or removal on the grounds mentioned in the said provision and failure to pass a prescribed examination, the resignation of the public service also entails forfeiture of past service. The resignation cannot have any relevant with the misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency not due to age neither it can have any relevance with failure to pass a prescribed examination which entails forfeiture of past service. 6. Thus, in my opinion, it cannot be held that the resignation should also be based on the grounds mentioned for dismissal or removal or failure to pass a prescribed examination which would only entail forfeiture of past service and not otherwise. This is also clear from the reading of the said provision which provides three separate exigencies which would entail forfeiture of past service in the matter of payment of pensionary benefits. By the use of adjective or in the rule between the three situations, namely, (i) resignation of the public service, (ii) dismissal or removal from it for misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency not due to age and (iii) failure to pass a prescribed examination which are completely independent and can have no nexus with each other, makes it clear that all the three circumstances would untail forfeiture of past service. This is further clear from clause (b) under which the resignation has been excluded from forfeiture of past service if tendered with the approval of the appointing authority to take up another appointment, service in which counts is not a resignation of the public service and the said period is to count for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 7. Thus, in my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled of the pensionary I benefits and the writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition Dismissed.