JUDGMENT : (MITALI THAKURIA, J.) Heard Mr. Imti Longchar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. N. Mozhui, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. 2. The petitioner has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of Certiorari, Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State respondent to pay pension and pensionary benefits for the service rendered by the petitioner as a constable for 14 years 11 months and 3 days. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief is that, he belongs to Sangtam st tribe and was recruited to ADM Coy of 1 Nagaland Armed Police (NAP), Chumukedima as constable in the scale of pay by Office Order No. 126/76 W/E dated 10.05.1976 and by Office Order No. NAP (Estt) 92/79-80/5588-94 and he was posted to 3rd NAP Battalion, Tuensang w.e.f. 07.11.1979 and allotted the Regimental No. 32237. After serving for long 14 years 11 months and 3 days, the petitioner applied for his discharge on 03.03.1991 and after due consideration by the appointing authority i.e., the Commandant discharged the petitioner w.e.f 01.04.1991 by Office Order No. 3HQ(RO-3)91-92/1102 dated 03.04.1991 as reflected from his service book and to that effect Discharged Certificate was granted to him on 16.11.1994. 4. It is further stated that despite taking due discharge from the competent authority, the petitioner was not given pension and service benefits. As such through help of a well-wisher as the petitioner being illiterate, he made a representation before the Director General of Police, Nagaland, Kohima on 23.04.2019 seeking payment of his pension and retirement benefits. However, vide Letter No. 3NAP(RO-3) 2019-20/990 rd dated 03.09.2019, the Commandant, 3 NAP Battalion, Tuensang had denied the same, stating that he was discharged from his service w.e.f 01.04.1991, at his own request. As per available records in the office, his GIS/GPF and leave encashment had already been prepared from the office. Further, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to pension and retirement benefits, as he was discharged from his service on his own request. 5. Mr. Longchar, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Deputy Secretary, Govt. As per available records in the office, his GIS/GPF and leave encashment had already been prepared from the office. Further, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to pension and retirement benefits, as he was discharged from his service on his own request. 5. Mr. Longchar, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Nagaland had communicated to the Director General of Police that as per Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, 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. It was the Department’s view that the petitioner was discharged from his service at his own request. Hence, thereby entailing forfeiture of his past service. Consequently, it is the Department’s view that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of pension or retirement benefits. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the pension is a matter of right and cannot be treated as bounty at the hands of the authority, the law clearly casts a duty upon the employer to pay pension to its employees. As such, the respondents are duty-bound to pay the pensionary benefits to the present petitioner. Therefore, the interference of this Court is necessary in the present case. 7. Mr. Longchar, learned counsel for the petitioner, to substantiate his submission, he also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1996) 7 SCC 113 (Yashwant Hari Katakkar vs. Union of India & Ors.,) wherein, in paragraph 3 of the said judgment, it has held as under: “3. The services of the appellant shall be treated to be in permanent capacity and he shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits. We allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and direct the respondents to treat the appellant as having been retired from service on 7-3-1980 after serving the Government for 18 1/2 years (more than 10 years of permanent service) and as such his case for grant of pension be finalised within six months from the receipt of this order. The appellant shall be entitled to all the arrears of pension from the date of retirement. No costs.” 8. Citing the above referred judgment, Mr. The appellant shall be entitled to all the arrears of pension from the date of retirement. No costs.” 8. Citing the above referred judgment, Mr. Longchar, learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that the appellant in the said case was not holding a permanent post/normal post but he was granted pre- matured retirement. Despite the situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the respondents to treat the appellant as retired from service after serving the Government for 18 years i.e., more than 10(ten) years, and granted the pension benefits to the appellant. But herein the instant case, the petitioner was holding a permanent post and had completed more than 10(ten) years of service and hence, the petitioner is entitled to retirement benefits, since 01.04.1991. 9. Mr. Longchar, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on another decision of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in case of Praduman Kumar Jain vs. Union of India (supra) reported in (1994) SCC, Supl. (2) 548 wherein, it has held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that, if the appellant had rendered his service for more than 10(ten) years under the Central Government, his service would be counted as qualifying service for pension if the provisions of Rules 13 and 49 on the Rules are satisfied. 10. He further submitted that he had to approach the appointing rd authority i.e., the Commandant, 3 NAP Battalion on 03.03.1991 for his discharge only due to his father’s illness, who was the Gaonbura of Hurong village, a hereditary/statutory head of the village and as per the custom it was incumbent upon the petitioner to discharge the duty in his father’s place but while intimating the authority for discharging it was not written by the present petitioner as he is illiterate and hence, those materials were not available in his prayer for discharge. The Head Gaonbura of village is statutory body/authority under the Government of Nagaland as provided under Rule 2(B) of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937. As per under Rule 2(B), the police of the State of Nagaland shall consist of- a) Regular police force of the State and b) Rural police, consisting of Mauzadars, Gaonburas, Chief, Headmen of Khels and other village authorities recognized as such by the Deputy Commissioner, with their subordinate village authorities. As per under Rule 2(B), the police of the State of Nagaland shall consist of- a) Regular police force of the State and b) Rural police, consisting of Mauzadars, Gaonburas, Chief, Headmen of Khels and other village authorities recognized as such by the Deputy Commissioner, with their subordinate village authorities. And since his discharge, the petitioner is discharging the statutory duty till date and in view of this also he is entitled for all the pension benefits. 11. Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, submitted in this regard that it is an admitted position that the petitioner had taken due discharge at his own request from the competent authority. Therefore, as per Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rule 1972, the petitioner is not eligible for pension. She further submitted that according to Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) 1972, resignation from service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service. She further submitted that the petitioner has submitted an application requesting the department to discharge him from service, thereby entailing forfeiture of past service. She also submitted that the petitioner had already severed his relationship with his employer by way of resignation cannot claim pension, unless he has retired from service on superannuation or on invalid or compassionate grounds. She submitted that an individual can also take voluntary retirement on completion of 20(twenty) years of qualifying service, and the benefits of voluntary retirement can be availed only after completion of 20(twenty) years of service, and not for 10(ten) years of service. 12. Further, Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate for the State, further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 8 SCC 325 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Braj Nandan Singh) and emphasized on paragraph No. 5 of the said judgement, which reads as under: “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 post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the Appointing Authority, entails forfeiture of past service. 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 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 of 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. 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 learned 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. 13. She further submitted that Head Gaonbura is also considered to be statutory body/authority under the Government of Nagaland as provided under Rule 2(B) of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937. But, as per Rule 14(2) of sub-rule, the expression “Service” means service under the Government and paid by the that Government from the Consolidated Fund of India or a Local Fund administered by that Government but does not include service in a non- pensionable establishment unless such service is treated as qualifying service by that Government. She further submitted that the service of Gaonbura is non-pensionable establishment and as such, the service cannot be treated as qualifying service as per norms. 14. She further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Radha Krishna Mishra (supra) reported in [2002] 10 SCC 424 (Radha Krishan Mishra vs. State of U.P & Anr.) has also expressed the view that “if an employee is discharged from the service on his own request, he is not entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the service under the Act.” 15. Citing the above referred judgments, the learned Government Advocate Ms. Inaholi submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any pensionary benefits as claimed. Therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. Mr. N. Mozhui, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6, the Accountant General submitted that in pursuance of the query as directed by this Court vide order dated 05.10.2023, the respondent No. 6 had filed an affidavit. Therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. Mr. N. Mozhui, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6, the Accountant General submitted that in pursuance of the query as directed by this Court vide order dated 05.10.2023, the respondent No. 6 had filed an affidavit. The Accountant General was directed to reply to the queries raised by the Court, which are as follows: 1. Whether a government servant who has been voluntarily discharged from service at his own request after serving for more than 10 years is entitled to pensionary benefits. 2. Whether a discharge from service and the resignation from service is one and same in regard to entitlement of pension. 17. He further submitted that the Accountant General accordingly submitted the Court’s query vide its letter dated 12.10.2023, wherein, the queries were accordingly replied by the Accountant General, as already annexed by the respondent No. 6 in his affidavit-in-opposition. As per replies to the queries, it is stated that the Government servant who has been discharged/ resigned from service of public interest is entitled to pensionary benefits. However, an employee can voluntarily retire after completing 20(twenty) years of qualifying service (CCS Pension Rule-43) 2021. Those Government servants who quit/resigned/ discharged from service on his own request is not entitled for pensionary benefits. Further, it is also replied to the query that in case of Civil Government servant, the term discharge and resignation from service are treated as same. In both the terms pensionary benefits will be entitled if it is in the public interest. However, there will be no pensionary benefits if the Government servant discharge/resigned at his own request. 18. Accordingly, Mr. Mozhui, learned counsel submitted that in the present case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner was discharged on his own request after completing 14(fourteen) years of service, and hence, he is not entitled for pension or other pensionary benefits. 19. 18. Accordingly, Mr. Mozhui, learned counsel submitted that in the present case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner was discharged on his own request after completing 14(fourteen) years of service, and hence, he is not entitled for pension or other pensionary benefits. 19. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, and considering the Pension Rules, all Annexures, as well as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsels for both parties, it is seen that the petitioner claimed his pension and the retirement benefits, stating that the State respondents are duty-bound to pay the pension and the retirement benefits to the present petitioner, which is the petitioner’s right, having extended his service for a long 14(fourteen) years in the department. Further, it is stated that the State authority had rejected his prayer for pension benefits solely under Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which states that “resignation from a service and a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service.” However, the State respondents did not consider the fact that he was a permanent employee of the department and had extended his service for more than 10(ten) years. In view of the judgment expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Yashwant Hari Katakkar vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), his prayer may be considered, and he is entitled to receive pensionary benefits. 20. Another claim of the petitioner is that he had to pray for his discharge only due to his father’s illness, who was the Gaonbura of Hurong village, a hereditary/statutory head of the village. As per the custom, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to take his father’s place. Furthermore, the petitioner claims that the Head Gaonbura of village is a statutory body/authority under the Government of Nagaland, as provided under Rule 2(B) of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937. The Gaonburas, including the Mauzadars, Chief, etc., are also considered to be rural police. Since the petitioner is discharging the statutory duty, he is entitled to pension benefits. 21. The Gaonburas, including the Mauzadars, Chief, etc., are also considered to be rural police. Since the petitioner is discharging the statutory duty, he is entitled to pension benefits. 21. On the other hand, it is the case of the State respondent that, as per Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, resignation from a service and a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service. Thus, the State respondent contends that the petitioner was discharged from service not in public interest by the concerned department, but at his own request. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim pensionary benefits, having forfeiture his past service. 22. It is also the case of the respondent that although the post of Gaonbura is considered a statutory body/authority, but Rule 14(2) states that the service of Gaonbura is a non-pensionable establishment. Consequently, such service cannot be treated as qualifying service by the Government. 23. In that context, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, the Accountant General, also submitted that a government servant who is discharged/resigned from service at their own request is not entitled for pensionary benefits. It is also clarified that, in the case of Civil Government servants, the terms discharge and resignation from service are treated as same. 24. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had discharged his duty as a rd constable in 3 NAP Battalion, Tuensang, after serving for 14 years 11 months 3 days. He applied for discharge on 03.03.1991, and considering his request he was discharged from his service w.e.f 01.04.1991 at his own request. Thus, there is no dispute that the petitioner was discharged at his own request after his service of 14 years 11 months 3 days. It is also not disputed that he was a permanent employee of the department, having rendered his service for more than 14 years. However, as per Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, 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. Since the petitioner was discharged from his service at his own request, there is no dispute regarding the applicability of the rule. 25. Since the petitioner was discharged from his service at his own request, there is no dispute regarding the applicability of the rule. 25. From the clarification provided by the respondent No. 6, it is evident that the terms ‘resignation’ and ‘discharge’ from service are treated as same. In both the terms, the pensionary benefits will be entitled only if the resignation or discharge is in public interest. However, in the instant case, it is clear that the petitioner was discharged at his own request, and not in the interest of public. Furthermore, Rule 49, under which the petitioner claims his pensionary right, only deals with the amount of pension and not with the entitlement. 26. Moreso, it is not the petitioner’s case that he rendered his service for more than 20(twenty) years, which would entitle him to pensionary benefits, or can it be considered as a case of voluntary retirement. 27. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Braj Nandan Singh (supra), relied upon by the Government Advocate, has held that 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. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that after acceptance of his resignation, in terms of Rule 26 sub-rule (1), the past service stands forfeited. The present petitioner’s case is similarly situated, wherein he was discharged from his service on his own request, and accordingly, the Rule 26 sub-rule (1) & (2) is applicable. Moreover, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishan Mishra vs. State of U.P & Anr. (supra), relied upon by the State respondents, has expressed the view that an employee discharged from his service on their own request, is not entitled to the benefits of the provisions of service under the act. 28. Coming to the issue raised by the petitioner, that after his discharge, he had to take over charge as Head Gaonbura, a hereditary/statutory head of the village, and as per custom, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to discharge the duty in his father’s place. As per Rule 2(B)(b) the rural police, consisting of Mauzadars, Gaonburas, Chief, Headmen of Khels and other village authorities recognized as such by the Deputy Commissioner. As per Rule 2(B)(b) the rural police, consisting of Mauzadars, Gaonburas, Chief, Headmen of Khels and other village authorities recognized as such by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner claims that he has been discharging the statutory duty till date. However, as submitted by the learned Government Advocate for the State respondent, the service of Gaonbura is considered to be non-pensionable establishment. As such, service as a Gaonbura cannot be considered as a qualifying service as per norms. Thus, although the petitioner has been discharging his duty till date as Head Gaonbura, a statutory authority, the said service cannot be considered as qualifying service for his entitlement of pensionary benefits. 29. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen that the present petitioner is not entitled to any pension or retirement benefits after his discharge from the department at his own request. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that in the present writ petition, no direction can be issued to the State authorities to release pension and pensionary benefits in favour of the present petitioner. 30. With the above observation, the present writ petition stands dismissed and disposed of.