Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 35 (PNJ)

Rakesh Kumar Grover v. State of Haryana

2006-01-04

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, S.N.AGGARWAL

body2006
JUDGMENT J.S. KHEHAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner was employed in the Education Department, Haryana as a H.C.M.S. Class-II on 2.10.1986. Having rendered service extending 13 years, he tendered his resignation on 24.4.2000. The resignation tendered by the petitioner was accepted by the competent authority on 19.2.2001. Thereafter the petitioner submitted a representation dated 24.4.2001 seeking the release of pensionary benefits. 2. Since the pensionary benefits claimed by the petitioner were not released to him, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No.16702 of 2002. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take a final decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner. In furtherance of the aforesaid directions, an order dated 5.6.2003 came to be passed. In sum and substance, the respondents found the petitioner ineligible for the grant of pensionary benefits. 3. The petitioner then approached this Court, so as to impugn the order dated 5.6.2003 by filing CWP No.12138 of 2003. The aforesaid writ petition was however, withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action. The instant writ petition therefore, came to be filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the respondents to release pensionary benefits to the petitioner. 4. The issue of release of pensionary benefits consequent upon submission of a resignation at the hands of an employee came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Union of India and others v. Rakesh Kumar AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1877. The Supreme Court in its determination on the issue, arrived at the conclusion that entitlement of pensionary benefits must necessarily flow from a statutory provision or on the basis of an instruction/administrative order, which is enforceable in law. Relevant observations in this behalf recorded by the Apex Court in the judgment referred to above are being extracted hereunder:- “Reading the aforesaid G.O. as a whole, it nowhere reveals Government’s intention to confer any additional pensionary benefits to the members of the BSF who retired before completing the requisite qualifying service as provided under the CCS (Pension) Rules. It neither supplements nor substitutes the statutory rules. It neither supplements nor substitutes the statutory rules. The G.O. Read with Rule 19 of the BSF Rules would only mean that in case of resignation and its acceptance by the competent authorities, the members of the BSF would be entitled to get pensionary benefits if he is otherwise eligible for getting the same under the CCS (Pension) Rules and to that extent Rule 26 which provides for forfeiture of service on resignation would not be applicable. Hence there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the G.O. or specific orders passed by the competent authority granting pension, appellants are estopped from contending that such officers are not entitled to get pensionary benefits. As stated above, the G.O. does not confer any additional benefit. Even the specific order which is quoted above in favour of Naik Rakesh Kumar, the authority has stated that he would get pensionary benefits as admissible under the Rules. Under the Rules, he is not entitled to get such benefits. XXX XXXX XXX XXX If rules are not providing for grant of pensionary benefits it is for the authority to decide and frame appropriate rules but Court cannot direct payment of pension on the ground of so-called hardship likely to be caused to a person who has resigned without completing qualifying service for getting pensionary benefits. As a normal rule, pensionary benefits are granted to a Government servant who is required to retire on his attaining the age of compulsory retirement except in those cases where there are special provisions.” 5. In order to claim retiral benefits, the petitioner has placed reliance on Rules 4.19 and 6.16 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. In our considered view, a government employee who has tendered his resignation, is not entitled to pensionary benefits under either of the aforesaid rules. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention that reliance placed on Rule 4.19 in the pleadings of the instant case are clearly irrelevant to the controversy raised, since Rule 4.19 only envisages that service rendered by an employee preceding his resignation will stand forfeited. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention that reliance placed on Rule 4.19 in the pleadings of the instant case are clearly irrelevant to the controversy raised, since Rule 4.19 only envisages that service rendered by an employee preceding his resignation will stand forfeited. Even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that the aforesaid service would not stand forfeited, the aforesaid rule by itself does not entitle an employee who has resigned from service, the right to claim pension or other allied benefits. In so far as Rule 6.16 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II is concerned, reliance has only been placed on Sub Rule 2 thereof in the pleadings of the instant writ petition. The same is accordingly, being extracted hereunder:- “6.16(2) In the case of a Government employee retiring on or after the 1st April, 1979, in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than thirty-three years or more, the amount of superannuation, retiring, invalid and compassionate pensions shall be 50% of average emoluments as defined in rule 6.19-C of these rules subject to a maximum of (Rs.3,000) (Substituted vide No.1/2/1/CSR Vo.II/91-Sr. AO(FD) dated 31.1.92) per mensem. However, in the case of a Government employee who at the time of retirement has rendered qualifying service of ten years or more but less than thirty-three years, the amount of pension shall be such proportion of the maximum admissible pension as such the qualifying service of thirty-three years, subject to a minimum of (Rs.375) (Substituted vide No.1/2/1/CSR Vo.II/91-Sr. AO(FD) dated 31.1.92) per mensem (A few illustrations are given in Annexure to this Chapter.” 7. A perusal of the aforesaid rule clearly delineates the right of pension and other allied benefits for employees whose tenure of employment has come to an end on account of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. Since the tenure of the petitioner did not come to an end on account of the aforesaid eventuality, but came to end on account of a resignation tendered by him on 24.4.2000, well before attaining the age of retirement on superannuation, we are of the considered view that the claim of pensionary and other allied benefits based on Rule 6.16 (2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II is equally misconceived. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we do not find any merit in the instant writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. -