Order : (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) 1. Assailing legality, validity and correctness of order dated 28-11-2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Committee empowered to decide the cases of Government servants particularly the pensionary benefits, the petitioner, who is widow of a Government servant, has filed this petition for releasing the entire amount of pension, gratuity and other retirement dues. By the impugned order, pensionary benefits of the petitioner’s husband have been denied relying upon Rule 26 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, ‘the Pension Rules’). 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: - 3. The petitioner’s husband namely Late Ghanshyam Singh Verma was working as Assistant Teacher in the Department of School Education. He submitted his resignation on 15-1-1990 which the competent authority Deputy Director, Public Instructions, Durg allowed on 19-1- 1990 with effect from 15-1-1990 and he was allowed to resign. Thereafter, the petitioner’s husband died on 21-7-1995. Subsequently, the petitioner filed W.P.(S)No.3373/2014 before this Court claiming pensionary benefits of her husband which was directed to be decided by the Committee empowered to decide the cases of Government servants particularly the pensionary benefits and the said Committee relying upon Rule 26 of the Pension Rules, rejected the claim of the petitioner. 4. The State/respondents has filed its return stating inter alia that the husband of the petitioner, who was working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Karanja, Bhilai, District Durg, had submitted his resignation on 15-1-1990 which was accepted by the Deputy Director, Public Instructions, Durg on 19-1-1990 with effect from 15-1-1990 and in the meantime, the petitioner’s husband died in harness on 29-6- 1995 and thereafter, the petitioner claimed retiral dues of her husband. It has been further stated in the return that after acceptance of resignation, the admissible retiral dues amounting to Rs.4,742/- have already been paid to the petitioner’s husband towards Family Welfare Fund. It has also been stated that so far as the amount of GPF is concerned, during the service tenure, the petitioner’s husband had withdrawn Rs.46,500/- as part final from 13-9-1985 to 8-12-1989, therefore, no amount remained to be paid to him under the head of GPF. Finally, it has been stated that by virtue of Rule 26 of the Pension Rules, which provides for forfeiture of service on resignation, the petitioner is not entitled for any pensionary benefits. 5. Mr. Finally, it has been stated that by virtue of Rule 26 of the Pension Rules, which provides for forfeiture of service on resignation, the petitioner is not entitled for any pensionary benefits. 5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that though the petitioner’s husband had submitted his resignation which was allowed and he was permitted to resign, but he is entitled for pension, gratuity and other benefits which cannot be held-up, therefore, appropriate writ or direction be issued directing the respondents for payment of retiral dues of the petitioner’s husband to the petitioner with interest. 6. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents, would submit that by virtue of Rule 26 of the Pension Rules, past service of the petitioner’s husband stand forfeited on the acceptance of his resignation on 19-1-1990 with effect from 15-1- 1990, therefore, he is not entitled for pensionary benefits and as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. For the sake of convenience, Rule 26 of the Pension Rules is required to be noted herein, which states as under: - “ 26. Forfeiture of service on resignation .—(1) Resignation from a service or post entails forfeiture of past service : Provided that a resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up with prior permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the State Government, where service qualifies. (2) Interruption in service in a case falling under the proviso to sub-rule (1), due to the two appointments being at different stations, not exceeding the joining time permissible under the rules of transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government servant on the date of relief or by formal condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to the Government servant.” 9. The heading of Rule 26 of the Pension Rules itself would show that it 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 heading of Rule 26 of the Pension Rules itself would show that it 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) of Rule 26 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. It is not the case of the petitioner’s husband that he was permitted to be withdrawn or it is a case of voluntary retirement. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others v. Gurbaran Singh , (2019) 4 SCC 805 while considering the provision contained in Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, which is pari materia provision to Rule 26 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, held as under: - “ 8. It was thus clearly laid down that in case of resignation from service or a post, unless the matter was covered under sub-rule (2) of Rule 26 of the CCS Rules, it would entail forfeiture of past service. Since the past service would stand forfeited, the same would be excluded from the period of qualifying service, and as such for deciding the question of entitlement to pension, the employee would not have the qualifying period of service.” 11. The principle of law laid down in Gurbaran Singh’s case (supra) has been followed with approval in the matter of Union of India and others v. Braj Nandan Singh , (2005) 8 SCC 325 . 12. As such, unless the resignation is covered by the Sub Rule (2), it would entail forfeiture of past service and since the past service would stand forfeited, the same would be excluded from the period of qualifying service, and as such for deciding the question of entitlement to pension, the employee would not have the qualifying period of service. 13. Coming to the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that it is the case of resignation simplicitor, it is not the case of voluntary retirement. 13. Coming to the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that it is the case of resignation simplicitor, it is not the case of voluntary retirement. In the aforesaid judgments, Gurbaran Singh (supra) and Braj Nandan Singh (supra), their Lordships have clearly concluded that resignation resulted in forfeiture of past service and as such in the instant case the deceased government servant upon acceptance of his resignation with effect from 15.1.1990 was not entitled for pensionary benefits, as it is not the case that deceased government servant has been permitted to resign for other government appointments if proper permission, temporary or permanent. As such, I am unable to persuade myself to interdict the order passed by the Competent Authority (Annexure P-1) that original government servant is not entitled for government service. The same is in accordance with Rule 26 of the Pension Rules. I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition which deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.