JUDGMENT : The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 15.06.2013 by which he has been denied pensionery benefits. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, who was appointed as Court Master on 23.04.2003, submitted an application on 04.02.2013 seeking voluntary retirement from service and for grant of pensionery benefits. This application was not accepted by the High Court and decision of the Court was communicated to the petitioner vide Memo dated 12.03.2013. The petitioner thereafter submitted his resignation through application dated 02.05.2013 on the ground that on account of his ailment he is not able to discharge his duty as Court Master. This application has been accepted and decision of the Court to accept his resignation w.e.f 09.05.2013 is reflected in Office Order dated 09.05.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation on 10.06.2013 for grant of pensionery benefits, which has been declined vide Memo dated 15.06.2013. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court-respondent no.2 it is pleaded that the application dated 04.02.2013 seeking voluntary retirement from service and grant of pensionary benefits after retirement was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had neither attained the age of 50 years nor completed 20 years of qualifying service on 04.05.2013, which are the conditions under Rule 74(b)(i) of Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 read with letter dated 27.04.1979 of the Finance Department. Specific stand taken by the respondent no.2 is reflected in paragraph nos.12 and 13 of the counter-affidavit, which are reproduced below : “12. That it is stated and submitted that a government servant is entitled to retiring pension, if he retires from service, either voluntary under Rule 74(b)(i) or he is required to retire from service under Rule 74(a) or Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001. But in all the three cases, the government servant has to render at least 20 to 30 years of service and or has to attain minimum 50 years of age. 13. That it is stated and submitted that this apart, a government servant may also be required to retire from service without fulfilling the above condition, as a measure of punishment under Rule 49(iv-a) of the Civil Services (Classification, Conduct & Appeal), Rules, 1935 and such government servant shall be entitled to get pension, subject to fulfillment of other conditions for the grant of pension. It may be submitted that compulsory retirement effected under the aforesaid Rules does not amount to penalty within the meaning of that Rule and it has been expressly provided under the heading “Explanation-II”, just below rule 49.” 4. Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Rule 86 and Clause 18 to the letter contained in Appendix VI to the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 submits that the petitioner who has completed the minimum qualifying service for pension cannot be denied pension on the ground that he has resigned from public service and thereby forfeited his service under the employer. The learned counsel has referred to the decisions in “Tapan Kumar Chatterjee Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.” reported in 1998 (1) PLJR 707 and in “Union of India and Others Vrs. Lt. Col. P.S. Bhargava” reported in (1997) 2 SCC 28 . 5. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the High Court has relied on Rule 101 of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 to contend that resignation from the public service is a distinct category clearly distinguishable from dismissal or removal from service for misconduct, insolvency and inefficiency which would also entail forfeiture of the service. Contention raised on behalf of the respondents is that the petitioner, who has resigned from service and his resignation is not accepted in terms of Rule 74(b) to the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, is not entitled for pensionery benefits. 6. Rule 36 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 provides that pensionable service means service which qualifies the government servant performing it to receive a pension from general revenue. Under Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules certain conditions are provided which must be fulfilled by the government servant who claims pension. These conditions are satisfied in the case of the petitioner. Under Clause 18 to Appendix VI to the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 minimum qualifying service for a permanent employee was provided as 10 years and for temporary employee as 15 years, however, now for both class of services minimum qualifying period of service for pension is 10 years. This minimum qualifying period of service in my opinion is referable to the employees who have attained the age of superannuation, that is, when on attaining a certain age as prescribed under the extant rules the government servant retires from service. This is called superannuation pension. This minimum qualifying period of service in my opinion is referable to the employees who have attained the age of superannuation, that is, when on attaining a certain age as prescribed under the extant rules the government servant retires from service. This is called superannuation pension. There are four class of pensions viz. compensation pension, invalid pension, superannuation pension and retiring pension. No doubt, in his application as well as representation, the petitioner has not referred to the type of pension which he is seeking and he has simply referred to completion of minimum qualifying service by him for pension, from the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 it appears that his representation dated 10.06.2013 has been rejected primarily on the ground that a similar claim for grant of pension was declined by the High Court as reflected in communication dated 12.03.2013. While declining representation of the petitioner for pensionery benefits, it appears that Rule 116 under Section III of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 has not been taken into account. Rule 116 provides that an invalid pension on retirement from public service may be granted to a government servant, however, subject to the conditions laid down thereunder. Plea taken by the petitioner while submitting his resignation on 02.05.2013 is that on account of his illness he is not able to perform his duty. Once resignation of the petitioner is accepted, in the above facts, it must be construed in law that the plea of illness leading to his inability to render service as pleaded by the petitioner for submitting his resignation has been accepted by the High Court and while so, in my opinion, Section III to Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 brings the case of the petitioner for a consideration for grant of invalid pension to him. 7. In the above facts, more particularly, the facts admitted by the respondents in the present case, the impugned order dated 15.06.2013 is quashed. Claim of the petitioner for grant of pensionery benefits shall be considered under Section III to the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 upon the petitioner furnishing a certificate under Rule 128 of the Pension Rules. 8. The writ petition stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.