JUDGMENT : This intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 23.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.439 of 2014, whereby and where under, the decision of the respondent no.2-Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court dated 15.06.2013, has been quashed, whereby and where under the claim of the pensionery benefit of the writ petitioner was denied. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading which requires to be enumerated herein reads hereunder as:- The writ petitioner was appointed as ‘Court Master’ vide order 23.04.2003. He has submitted an application on 04.02.2013 seeking voluntary retirement from service and for grant of pensionery benefits. The application was rejected by the High Court and decision of the Court was communicated to the writ petitioner vide Memo dated 12.03.2013. The writ petitioner, thereafter, submitted his resignation through application dated 02.05.2013 on the ground of his ailment since he was not been able to discharge his duty as ‘Court Master’. The application has been accepted vide decision of the Court w.e.f. 09.05.2013 as reflected in Office Order dated 09.05.2013. The writ petitioner, thereafter, submitted a representation on 10.06.2013 for grant of pensionery benefit, which has been declined vide Memo dated 15.06.2013. Being aggrieved with the said decision the writ petitioner had approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.439 of 2014, wherein, on being called upon by this Court, appearance has been made by the respondent no.2-the Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court, inter-alia stand has been taken before the writ Court that as per the provision of Rule 101 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, the writ petitioner is not entitled to get the pensionery benefit since the resignation under the provision of Rule 101 of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 entails forfeiture of past service. Learned Single Judge, discarding the aforesaid stand, has quashed the order dated 15.06.2013 and allowed the writ petition with a direction for consideration of grant of pensionery benefits under Chapter-VI of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, if the writ petitioner furnishes a certificate under Rule 128 of the Pension Rules. The aforesaid order is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 3. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-has submitted his stand by taking reliance upon the provision of Rule 101 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 which contains a provision about forfeiture of past service. The aforesaid order is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 3. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-has submitted his stand by taking reliance upon the provision of Rule 101 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 which contains a provision about forfeiture of past service. Once the past service in consequence of resignation is forfeited, there would be no question of granting pensionery benefit, even if the public servant has completed the qualifying period of service. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has relied upon the provision of Rule 116 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, however, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the provision of Rule 116 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 will not be applicable. 4. This Court after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, deem it fit and proper first to refer certain provisions as provided under the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 which are relevant in the present facts and circumstance of the case. Since the issue involved in this case is the effect of resignation, therefore, the provision pertaining to resignation is being referred herein. Rule 101 has two parts. The provision as contained under sub rule (a) stipulates the effect of resignation which entails forfeiture of past service whereas sub rule (b) thereof is to the effect that, in case the resignation of an appointment is with the approval of the appointing authority to take up another appointment, that would not be treated as resignation of the public service. The provision of Rule 101 stands extracted and reproduced as under for better appreciation: “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.” It is evident from the aforesaid that the provision of Rule 101(a) stipulates the situation of resignation and its consequence. (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.” It is evident from the aforesaid that the provision of Rule 101(a) stipulates the situation of resignation and its consequence. If a public servant resigned from the public service that will entail the forfeiture of past service similar to forfeiture of past service in a case of dismissal or removal on the ground of misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency not due to age, or failure to pass a prescribed examination. Therefore, the Rule 101(a) contemplates two situations, one about resignation of the public service and another in case of dismissal or removal from it for misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency not due to age, or failure to pass a prescribed examination. The aforesaid provision clearly lays down without any ambiguity as to under what circumstances the past service has to be forfeited, the circumstances being the case of resignation or dismissal or removal, insolvency, inefficiency not due to age, or failure to pass a prescribed examination. Rule 101(b) also speaks about exception in case of resignation of an appointment with the approval of the appointing authority to take up another appointment. The provision of Rule 116 as under Section III to the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 speaks about invalid pension which reads as hereunder:- “116. An invalid pension is awarded, on his retirement from the public service, to a Government servant who by bodily or mental infirmity is permanently incapacitated for the public service, or for the particular branch of it to which he belongs.” The provision of Rule 116 confers power upon the authority to consider the case for grant of invalid pension on his retirement from the public service to a Government servant who by bodily or mental infirmity is permanently incapacitated for the public service, or for the particular branch of it to which he belongs. Rule 117 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 is also relevant for consideration in the present scenario which contains a provision in case of partial incapacity which reads as hereunder:- “117. In the case of partial incapacity [vide alternative certificate in rule 128], a Government servant should if possible, be employed even on lower pay so that the expense of pensioning him may be avoided. In the case of partial incapacity [vide alternative certificate in rule 128], a Government servant should if possible, be employed even on lower pay so that the expense of pensioning him may be avoided. If there be no means of employing him even on lower pay, then he may be admitted to pension; but it should be considered whether in view of his capacity for partially earning a living, it is necessary to grant to him the full pension admissible under rule.” The provision of Rule 117 stipulates the case of partial incapacity, a Government servant should, if possible, be employed even on lower pay so that the expense of pensioning him may be avoided. If there be no means of employing him even on lower pay then he may be admitted to pension but it should be considered whether in view of his capacity for partially earning a living, it is necessary to grant to him the full pension admissible under rule or not. The provision of Rule 116 is to be read together with the provision of Rule 117 upon which the invalid pension is to be considered which is only in case of permanent disability if found for the public service, meaning thereby, there must be a cogent evidence and expert opinion for such public servant declared to be permanent disabled or incapacitated to render public service even if such declaration would be there, in order to avoid expense of pensioning mechanism, it has been provided that it has to be examined as to whether the employment could be given or not even in lower pay. The statute provides provision to meet out such situation only if there is definite conclusion about permanent incapacitation incapacitated for the public service. Thus, if the Government servant is applying for an invalid pension, he would be required to submit a medical certificate of incapacity in the manner specified in Rule 128. The provision of Rule 119 is also required to be referred herein which discloses that, if a Government servant is discharged on grounds other than those stated above, would have no claim to pension under Rule 116, even though he can produce medical evidence of incapacity for service, therefore, in case of discharging Government servant, the provision of Rule 116 will not be applicable. As per the provision under Rule 120 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 if the incapacity is directly due to irregular or intemperate habits, no pension can be granted. If it has been directly caused by such habits but has been accelerated or aggravated by them, it will be for the authority by which the pension is grantable to decide what reduction in pension should be made on that count. The provision of Rule 128 also requires to be referred herein, since under the provision of Rule 118, a Government servant applying for an invalid pension is required to submit a medical certificate of incapacity in the manner specified in Rule 128. The Rule 128 contains the form of medical certificate which is being reproduced here-in-below:- “128. The form of the certificate to be given respecting a Government servant applying for pension in India is as follows:-“Certified that I (we) have carefully examined A.B. son of C.D. a-in the … … … His age is by him own statement… … … years and by appearance… … … … years. I (we) consider A.B. to be completely and permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind (or in the department to which he belongs) in consequence of … … … (here state disease or cause). His incapacity does not appear to me (us) to have been caused by irregular or intemperate habits.” Note.-If the incapacity is obviously the result of intemperance substitute for the last sentence. “In my (our) opinion, his incapacity is the result of irregular or intemperate habits.” If the incapacity does not appear to be complete and permanent, the certificate should be modified accordingly and the following addition should be made:-I am (we are) of opinion that AB is fit for further service of a less laborious character than that which he has been doing or may, after resting for … … … … months, fit for further service of a less laborious character than that which he has been doing.” It is evident from the aforesaid Form that the medical certificate is required to be produced under the Format as provided under the provision of Rule 128 giving therein the declaration by the medical expert about incapacity to discharge public service. 5. This Court has examined the factual aspects on the basis of the aforesaid legal position. 5. This Court has examined the factual aspects on the basis of the aforesaid legal position. The admitted fact herein is that the writ petitioner was appointed on 23.04.2003 as ‘Court Master’ in the establishment of Jharkhand High Court. The petitioner has joined his duty on 01.05.2003. The services of the writ petitioner was confirmed after completion of two years of service on probation w.e.f. 01.05.2005. The writ petitioner filed an application for voluntary retirement before the competent authority of the Jharkhand High Court with grant of pensionery benefit due to his ailment vide application dated 04.02.2013 but the aforesaid application was rejected on 12.03.2013. The writ petitioner, upon rejection of his application for voluntary retirement along with grant of pensionery benefit, had tendered his resignation on 02.05.2013 which was accepted on 09.05.2013 and, thereafter, he had filed a representation before the authority for grant of pensionery benefit but it was rejected vide order dated 15.06.2013. Therefore, it is the admitted case of the writ petitioner that after non-acceptance of proposal of voluntary retirement, resignation submitted by him, was accepted meaning thereby that, after acceptance of the resignation, his claim from the roll has been struck off. Therefore, it has to be considered as resignation as has been referred hereinabove under the provision of Rule 101(a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 which entails forfeiture of past services. The claim of the writ petitioner that, since he had completed 10 years of qualified service holding him entitled to get the pensionery benefit, therefore, the rejection of the pensionery benefit by the competent authority would not be sustainable in the eye of law, cannot be accepted by us for the reason that when consequence of resignation is forfeiture of past service, the service rendered by the writ petitioner under the employer would automatically stand forfeited and hence once the past services rendered by the writ petitioner stood forfeited, there would be no question of consideration of period of service in the account of the writ petitioner to be counted for grant of pension treating the said period as qualifying period. 6. The learned Single Judge has not dealt with provision of Rule 101 in proper perspective even though, the aforesaid legal position was brought to the notice of the writ Court, as would appear from para-5 of the impugned judgment. 7. 6. The learned Single Judge has not dealt with provision of Rule 101 in proper perspective even though, the aforesaid legal position was brought to the notice of the writ Court, as would appear from para-5 of the impugned judgment. 7. We have gathered from the impugned judgment that instead of answering the issue about applicability of provision of Rule 101 of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, the learned Single Judge has considered the provision of Rule 116. 8. We, on close scrutiny of the provision of Rule 116 read with Rules 117, 118, 119, 120 and 128 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, as has been referred hereinabove, are of the view that the provision of Rule 116 speaks about invalid pension which is to be awarded on the retirement from the public service. It is the admitted case of the writ petitioner that the proposal/offer for voluntary retirement was rejected as on 12.03.2013 and the said order has not been assailed by the writ petitioner, then he resigned, meaning thereby, it is the admitted case of the writ petitioner that he has been separated from the roll of service not on the ground of retirement rather on the ground of resignation which has been accepted on 09.05.2013. As would be evident from the provision of Rule 116 of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 read with Rules 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 and 128, these provisions are about invalid pension which is to be awarded on retirement of the concerned from the public service on the ground of bodily or mental infirmity which is permanent in nature incapacitating permanently for the public service or for the particular branch of it to which he belongs. The provision of Rule 117 speaks about the case of partial incapacity and in such situation, a Government servant should if possible, be employed even on lower pay so that the expense of pensioning him may be avoided. The process for declaring the public servant holding entitle for invalid pension is provided under the provision of Rule 118 which requires about submission of medical certificate of incapacity in the manner specified in rule 128. The provision of Rule 128 speaks about the Form of medical certificate to be furnished by the concerned public servant getting his declaration about his incapacity as referred and quoted above. 9. The provision of Rule 128 speaks about the Form of medical certificate to be furnished by the concerned public servant getting his declaration about his incapacity as referred and quoted above. 9. As has been observed hereinabove, the rejection or offer of voluntary retirement since has not been assailed rather it has been accepted after making offer for resignation from service, therefore, it is not a case of retirement rather it is a case of resignation. Thus, we are of the considered view that the provision of Rule 116 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 will not be applicable in the facts and circumstance of the case. 10. Mr. Saurabh Arun, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1-writ petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Tapan Kumar Chatterjee Vrs. State of Bihar, reported in 1998 (1) P.L.J.R., 707 wherein according to him, even in the case of resignation, the pensionery benefit has been directed to be granted and therefore, the fact of the present case being similar to that of the case of Tapan Kumar Chatterjee Vrs. State of Bihar (supra), hence, it cannot be said that the direction of the learned Single Judge is having any infirmity. He has also relied upon the unreported judgment of this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi Vrs. Giribala Devi and Ors. passed in L.P.A. No.187 of 2014, wherein also according to him, the pensionery benefit has been directed to be paid by considering 13 years of service rendered by the concerned respondent of L.P.A.No.187 of 2014 and therefore, it is contended that there would be no reason to deny such claim in favour of the writ petitioner. 11. In response, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, places reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of State of Bihar & Anr. Vrs. Dr. (smt.) Shahida Hassan, reported in (2010) 2 P.L.J.R. 189 , holding that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Tapan Kumar Chatterjee Vrs. State of Bihar, (supra) to be not a correct law. 12. Vrs. Dr. (smt.) Shahida Hassan, reported in (2010) 2 P.L.J.R. 189 , holding that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Tapan Kumar Chatterjee Vrs. State of Bihar, (supra) to be not a correct law. 12. This Court, after appreciating the rival submissions and after going across the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Tapan Kumar Chatterjee Vrs. State of Bihar (supra) as also on close scrutiny of the judgment pronounced by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of State of Bihar & Anr. Vrs. Dr. (smt.) Shahida Hassan (supra), is of the view that the decision rendered in Tapan Kumar Chatterjee Vrs. State of Bihar (supra) has been held to be not a correct law, accordingly, the same stands overruled and any other decision following that decision has to follow the similar path. The relevant paragraph from the State of Bihar & Anr. Vrs. Dr. (Smt.) Shahida Hassan (supra) is being extracted and quoted here-in-below:- “24. In view of the aforesaid we are of the considered opinion the decision rendered in Tapan Kumar Chatterjee (supra) does not laid down the correct law and, accordingly, the same is overruled and any other decision following that decision has to follow the similar path and we so direct.” 13. We have also gone across the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vrs. Braj Nandan Singh, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 325 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, considering the provision of Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 which is pari materia to the provision of Rule 101 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 and has been pleased to lay down that the statutory provision is to be read out as per the stipulation made therein without any insertion of any word therein, since the statute is an edict of the legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. The Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the provision of Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 has been pleased to hold that in case of resignation, there is no question of any grant of pensionery benefit treating the service rendered as qualified service entitling the public servant to get the pensionery benefit. The paragraph-5 and 6 of the aforesaid judgment is required to be referred hereinbelow:- “5. In order to appreciate rival submissions Rule 26 which is the pivotal provision needs to be quoted. The same reads as under: "26. Forfeiture of service on resignation-(1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the Appointing Authority, entails forfeiture of past service. (2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies." Rule 26 as the heading itself shows relates to forfeiture of service on resignation. In clear terms it provides that resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the Appointing Authority, entails forfeiture of past service. The language is couched in mandatory terms. However, sub-rule (2) is in the nature of an exception. It provides that resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies. Admittedly this is not the case in the present appeal. Rule 5 on which great emphasis was laid down by the learned counsel for the respondent deals with regulation of claims to pension or family pension. Qualifying service is dealt with in Chapter III. The conditions subject to which service qualifies are provided in Rule 14. Chapter V deals with classes of pensions and conditions governing their grant. The effect of Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) cannot be lost sight of while deciding the question of entitlement to pension. The High Court was not justified in its conclusion that the rule was being torn out of context. After the past service is forfeited the same has to be excluded from the period of qualifying service. The effect of Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) cannot be lost sight of while deciding the question of entitlement to pension. The High Court was not justified in its conclusion that the rule was being torn out of context. After the past service is forfeited the same has to be excluded from the period of qualifying service. The language of Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) is very clear and unambiguous. It is trite law that all the provisions of a statute have to be read together and no particular provision should be treated as superfluous. That being the position after the acceptance of resignation, in terms of Rule 26 sub-rule (1) the past service stands forfeited. That being so, it has to be held that for the purpose of deciding question of entitlement to pension the respondent did not have the qualifying period of service. There is no substance in the plea of the leaned counsel for the respondent that Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) has limited operation and does not wipe out entitlement to pension as quantified in Rule 49. The said Rule deals with amount of pension and not with entitlement. 6. It is well settled principle in law that the Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the Legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent.” 14. This Court has also considered the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi Vrs. Giribala Devi and Ors. passed in L.P.A.No.187 of 2014 and by going through the said judgment it has been found by us that the same is without any finding recorded with respect to the effect of provision of Rule 116 and further in the peculiar facts of that case, the judgment has been rendered, therefore, the said judgment is not applicable in the present matter. 15. 15. This Court, after discussing the legal position in detail as above as also the factual aspect and after going across the finding of the learned Single Judge, is of the considered view that, since the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the effect of the provision of Rule 116 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 without properly considering the provision of Rule 101 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 which according to us, is applicable in the facts and circumstance of the case as has been held hereinabove, the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable as it suffers from aforesaid illegality. 16. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside. 17. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and the W.P.(S) No.439 of 2014 stands dismissed.