Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was originally appointed as Peon in Mellasamudhram Town Panchayat on 05.10.1961. He served upto 05.10.1963. Later, he served as Over Head Tank Watchman from 01.06.1966 to 02.04.1976 in the said Town Panchayat. He was sanctioned unearned leave from 05.12.1975 to 02.04.1976. The date of birth of the petitioner was 17.03.1940 and his date of retirement was 31.03.2000. According to the petitioner, after 02.04.1976, he was not allowed to work; no other posting order was given to him and no disciplinary action was initiated against him. He was neither terminated nor removed/dismissed from service till the date of his retirement. As per Rule 56(a) of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules, he is deemed to have been retired from service on 31.03.2000 and he is entitled to get the pensionary benefits. However, when he claimed pension, the same was negatived by the first respondent, by the order dated 18.06.1999. Consequently, the second respondent passed the order dated 09.08.1999, refusing to grant pension to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.4801 of 2000 (W.P.No.31126 of 2005) to quash the aforesaid order dated 18.06.1999 of the first respondent and the consequential order dated 09.08.1999 of the second respondent. 3. The respondents have filed separate reply affidavits refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. 4. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order denying pension to the petitioner on the ground that he was continuously absent for more than five years is bad. According to him, the petitioner was not permitted to rejoin duty, after the expiry of the unearned leave and he was not given any other posting order. The respondents could not adduce another reason in the reply affidavit that he resigned his job and that therefore, he is not entitled to pension as per the Pension Rules. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Rule 41-A(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules that a Government servant may resign his appointment by giving notice of not less than three months in writing directly to the appointing authority with a copy marked to his immediate officer. This rule was not followed in the case of petitioner. Hence, there was no resignation in the eye of law. This rule was not followed in the case of petitioner. Hence, there was no resignation in the eye of law. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to pension for his service rendered from the year 1961 to 1976 i.e. for 15 years. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submit that the resignation of the petitioner was not entered in the Service Register. The impugned order was passed based on the service register of the petitioner. Hence, it was stated that the petitioner did not join service after 02.04.1976 and remained absent for more than five years. But the fact was that he resigned his service by giving a letter dated 21.04.1976. 8. The learned counsel for the second respondent relies on the Audit Report dated 26.02.1978. As per the report, the petitioner resigned his job on 21.04.1976. The learned counsel produced the copy of the resolution passed by the second respondent, sanctioning certain amount to the petitioner, based on his resignation. 9. I have considered the submissions made on either side. The impugned order dated 18.06.199 passed by the first respondent reads as follows: (TAMIL) The impugned order reveals that the same was passed based on the Service Register of the petitioner. As per the Service Register, he was sanctioned unearned leave from 05.12.1975 to 02.04.1976. There was no entry in the service register relating to rejoining of duty by the petitioner after the expiry of leave on 02.04.1976. Based on the service register, it is stated that the petitioner was not entitled to get pension as per the Pension Rules, since he was continuously absent for more than five years. 10. If there was no entry in the Service Register relating to rejoining of duty and he was not terminated and no disciplinary action was taken against him, he should be deemed to have been retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation as per F.R.56. 11. The first respondent denied pension stating that the petitioner was continuously absent for more than five years and hence, he is not entitled to pensionary benefits, as per the Rules. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same cannot be the reason to deprive pension, unless he was removed from service. 11. The first respondent denied pension stating that the petitioner was continuously absent for more than five years and hence, he is not entitled to pensionary benefits, as per the Rules. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same cannot be the reason to deprive pension, unless he was removed from service. If the Department failed to take any action and permitted him to retire from service, the Government servant is entitled to claim pension for the service rendered by him, if he rendered more than ten years of service. 12. In the present case, the petitioner resigned his job on 21.04.1976. Of course, the same was not recorded in the Service Register. It was the fault of the concerned officers, who handled the Service Register. But the person, who submitted his resignation, could not ask for the benefit of pension. In fact, the petitioner lacks bonafide in making his claim for pension. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to argue relying on Rule 41-A of the Tamil Nadu and State Subordinate Service Rules and also the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in MOHINDER SINGH GILL VS. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 . 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not rely on Rule 41-A(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, as the resignation was acted upon by the Department and no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. 15. It is true that the service register does not reflect the submission of resignation. But the report of the Auditors speaks about the resignation submitted by the petitioner. The Auditors Report for the year 1976-77 was placed before this Court. The relevant passage from the said report is as follows: "TAMIL" 16. The learned Government Advocate for the first respondent has produced the resolution of the second respondent, granting certain amount to the petitioner, based on the resignation submitted by him. The said resolution is as follows: "TAMIL" 17. If the petitioner resigned his job, he is not entitled to pensionary benefits. The first respondent rejected the pension on the ground that he is continuously absent for more than five years. The reason given by the first respondent for denying pension is not correct. The said resolution is as follows: "TAMIL" 17. If the petitioner resigned his job, he is not entitled to pensionary benefits. The first respondent rejected the pension on the ground that he is continuously absent for more than five years. The reason given by the first respondent for denying pension is not correct. But the first respondent gave those reasons based on the service register, wherein there is no entry relating to the resignation submitted by the petitioner. But the petitioner submitted resignation later and the same was acted upon by the second respondent. 18. The judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case. 19. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to pension. It is a different matter, had the petitioner not submitted any resignation later. In that event, since no termination order was passed and no disciplinary action was taken, the petitioner is entitled to pension, as he is deemed to have been retired from service as per F.R.56. But as stated above, it is found that the petitioner resigned his job. Hence, he is not entitled to pension. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.