JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge dated 23.4.1998 in CW 3458/1995. By that order the writ petition of the respondent for payment of pensionary benefits, was allowed by the learned single judge. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: The respondent (petitioner in the writ petition) is a member of Scheduled Caste category. He was appointed as a Class IV employee in Municipal Council, Jaipur on 25.7.1957. Subsequently he was confirmed on the post and was put on a regular pay scale. It appears that in the year 1990-91, the respondent because of his age suffered from weak eyesight, as a result of which he expressed his intention to resign by means of an application Annexure-R3/3 of the reply filed by the appellants to the writ petition. 3. From the application it is clear that by virtue of the aforesaid letter, the respondent had not tendered his resignation but had expressed his wish to resign. According to the respondent herein the aforesaid letter was treated as letter seeking voluntary retirement and the appellants on 6.3.1991 accepted the same. However, from the reading of the order of the appellants dated 6.3.1991, it is clear that the appellants treated the application of the respondent Annexure-R3/3, as letter of resignation and the same was accepted and in his place his daughter-in-law Munni Devi was appointed as a Class IV employee. After his release from service the respondent made a request to the appellants for payment of his pension, but the appellants refused the same. Thereupon, the respondent filed a writ petition claiming pensionary benefits. The learned single Judge treated Annexure-R3/3 as a request for voluntary retirement and allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single judge, the appellants have come up in appeal before us. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is not in dispute that the respondent had served the Municipality for thirty-four years and had qualified himself to receive full pension from it. But the appellants only released the provident fund of the respondent amounting to Rs. 11,268/-. A sum of Rs. 6000/- was, however, adjusted from the aforesaid amount as being the loan amount, which was advanced to the respondent during his course of service. But the appellants only released the provident fund of the respondent amounting to Rs. 11,268/-. A sum of Rs. 6000/- was, however, adjusted from the aforesaid amount as being the loan amount, which was advanced to the respondent during his course of service. As regards the pension, the appellants did not release the same in purported exercise of power under R.208 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short 'the Rules'). Under R.208 of the Rules, the appellants seem to have forfeited past service of the respondent and consequently deprived him of his pension. The question is whether the appellants were justified in doing so. In order to resolve the issue, it will be necessary to notice R.208. The rule reads as under :, "Resignation, dismissal or removal for misconduct etc.-(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 to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether permanent or temporary, service in which counts in full or in part, is not a resignation of public service. In case where an interruption in service is inevitable due to the two appointments being at different stations, such interceptions, not exceeding the joining time permissible under the rules on transfer, shall cover by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government servant on the date of relief or by formal condonation under Rule 212 to the extent to which the period is not covered by the leave due to the Government servant." As is apparent from the rule, past service of an employee can be forfeited only in the following circumstances: (i) Resignation of public service not due to age; (ii) Dismissal from public service for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency; (iii) Removal from Government service for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency; (iv) Dismissal or removal for failure to pass a prescribed examination. 6. In the instant case, R.208 of the Rules was not applicable at all since none of the aforesaid conditions entailing forfeiture of service were present. It is not the case of the appellants that the respondent was dismissed or removed from service due to misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, or he had failed to pass a prescribed examination. 7. 6. In the instant case, R.208 of the Rules was not applicable at all since none of the aforesaid conditions entailing forfeiture of service were present. It is not the case of the appellants that the respondent was dismissed or removed from service due to misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, or he had failed to pass a prescribed examination. 7. The learned single judge found that the respondent had acquired the age of 52 years and was suffering from severe deficiency in vision. The facts found by the learned single judge are supported by a medical certificate of the respondent, Annexure-1 to the writ petition and an affidavit of the respondent, Annexure-R3/1 filed by the appellants along with their reply. The Medical Certificate, Annexure-1 to the writ petition reads as follows: "This is to certify that Shri Ramjilal S/o. Nanna, 52 years age, is suffering from severe defect in vision, thereby advised for bed rest for long duration." 8. Thus the aforesaid certificate speaks about the age of the respondent and his ailment. Again the affidavit Annexure-R3/1 is to the effect that the respondent due to old age and as a result of deficiency in eyesight wished to resign from service. Even Annexure-R3/3, which has been annexed with the reply, shows that the respondent was willing to resign from service on the ground of his old age and defect in the eyesight. Since the appellants treated Annexure-R3/3 as an application of the respondent seeking retirement and accepted the same, this clearly establishes that the appellants admitted the stand of the respondent that he was suffering from old age and from defect in eye. Thus, Annexure-R3/3 if at all is to be considered as a letter of resignation of the respondent, the same was based on his age and weak eyesight. Resignation of an employee from public service due to age does not attract R.208 of the Rules. Therefore, the appellants were not right in forfeiting the past service of the respondent. R.208 operates only when the resignation is not due to age. 9. Learned single judge was, therefore, right in allowing the writ petition and coming to the conclusion that R.208 of the Rules had no application to the case of the respondent. Therefore, the appellants were not right in forfeiting the past service of the respondent. R.208 operates only when the resignation is not due to age. 9. Learned single judge was, therefore, right in allowing the writ petition and coming to the conclusion that R.208 of the Rules had no application to the case of the respondent. In support of his view, learned single judge relied on the decision of this court in Lochan Vishal v. State of Rajasthan others 1997(1) RLR 670 = 1997(3) WLC (RAJ.) 189 , wherein it was held as follows: "This Rule provides that resignation of the public service will entail forfeiture of past service, the consequence being loss of pensionary benefits. The Rule obviously has penal consequence and is therefore, required to be strictly interpreted. The consequence of forfeiture of past service, which entails forfeiture of pensionary benefits, can occur in the following contingency only; (i) Resignation of public service not due to age; (ii) To dismiss from public service for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency; (iii) Removal from Government service for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency; (iv) Failure to pass a prescribed examination. By clause (b) of Rule 208, it is stipulated that the resignation of an appointment to take up another appointment is not a resignation of a public service. According to me if the Rule is read as a whole, it is designed to visit forfeiture of service to an employee if he leaves the service or is dismissed or removal from it for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency. If the resignation of the public service is due to age, it cannot be considered to a resignation requiring forfeiture of service." 10. The aforesaid decision was rendered by a Single Bench of this court. If we may say so, with respect, the interpretation placed by the court in Lochan Vishal's case on R.208 of the Rules is unexceptionable and accordingly we approve of the same. 11. In the circumstances, therefore, we are of the view that the appellants were not right in forfeiting more than three decades of service of the respondent and thereby denying him pensionary benefits. The action of the appellants in forfeiting the past service of the respondent was absolutely unfair, unjust and unreasonable. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. CMS 698/1998Since the appeal is dismissed, the stay application is dismissed as well.Appeal Dismissed. *******