Naresh Kumar Sharma vs State of Haryana and others

Permod Kohli, J.—The petitioner was appointed as Steno Junior Grade in the year 1997. He joined service on 27.8.1997 and earned promotions as Stenographer Grade II and Judgment Writer, respectively. It is alleged that due to unavoidable family problem, the petitioner served one month notice for resigning from service on 5.8.2008 and requested for acceptance of resignation w.e.f. 4.9.2008, Petitioner''s resignation came to be accepted by respondent no.2 vide letter dated 11.8.2008 (Annexure P-2), without any caveat or condition. At the time of resignation, the petitioner had completed 11 years and 8 months of service. Thereafter, the petitioner requested for grant of pension. Respondent no.2 in whose office, the petitioner was serving, vide his letter dated 2.5.2009 (Annexure P-3) addressed to respondent no.3 sought clarification regarding entitlement of the petitioner for pension as per Rule 6.16 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules as applicable to the employees of the State of Haryana. Respondent no.3 vide his letter dated 12.5.2009 communicated to respondent no.2 that the petitioner is not entitled to retiral benefits. On that basis, the petitioner has been denied the pensionary/retiral benefits. This petition has been filed seeking a direction for grant of pensionary/retiral benefits alongwith interest at the Rate of 18%.

It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner having completed 10 years of qualifying service is entitled to pro rata pensionary benefits, in accordance with service rules.

The respondents in their reply, however, resisted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that under Rule 3.26(e) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume I Part I read with Rule 5.32 B of the Haryana Civil Services Rules Vol.11, the petitioner is not entitled to pension, gratuity or any other pensionary benefits, he having resigned from the post by giving one month notice only. It is further stated that the petitioner having neither completed 20 years of qualifying service nor attained the age of 55 years at the time of submission of resignation is not entitled to pensionary/retrial benefits.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. This controversy came to be considered by this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Madan Pal Ahlawat (P&H), 2003 (1) SCT 327. In the aforesaid case, the employee had completed 11 years 5 months and 15 days of service when he tendered resignation due to domestic problems. He was denied the pensionary benefits having not completed 33 years of service for earning full pension under rules. A similar plea was raised by the State. This Court, on consideration of the mandate of Rules 4.19(a) and 6.16(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rule Vol.11 Part IT (as applicable to State of Haryana) held as under:-

I am of the considered opinion that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in the case of Ex. Const. Jai Singh (Haryana State through Collector Land, Jind v. Ex. Constable Jai Singh No. 2461, R.S.A. No. 2682 of 2007, decided on 26.09.2007 (supra). There is no dispute that in the present case, the respondent had completed 11 years, 5 months and 15 days of service, when he resigned from service on 1.11.1984 due to domestic reasons. Having put in more than 10 years of service, the respondent was clearly entitled to proportionate pension as provided under rule 6.16(2). This rule provides that in the case of a government employee, who at the time of retirement has rendered qualifying service of 10 years or more, but less than 33 years, the amount of pension shall be such proportion of the maximum admissible pension as such the qualifying service of thirty-three years, subject to a minimum of Rs.375. This being the rule, both the courts below have correctly held the respondent to be entitled to the pensionary benefits.

I am of the opinion that the reliance on rule 4.19(a) y Mr. Bhinder, appearing on behalf of the State is wholly misconceived. That rule would apply only in cases where a resignation is submitted by a government servant to avoid an order of dismissal or removal from service either under Proviso C to Article 311(2) for anti-national activities such as sabotage, espionage etc. or for misconduct. Naturally, under such circumstances, there would be forfeiture of past service and no pension would be granted. This provision cannot possibly be made applicable to a voluntary resignation from service for domestic reasons. Even in the case of resignation, the case would clearly fall under rule 6.16(2).

In view of the above, I find no merit in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed with costs.

The facts of the present case arc similar to the above mentioned case.

In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to release all pensionary/retiral benefits to the petitioner on pro rata basis within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Since the respondents have illegally and without any valid reason withheld the retiral/pensionary benefits, the petitioner shall be entitled to statutory interest on the delayed payment of gratuity and GPF and interest at the rate of 6% per annum on delayed payment of other retrial benefits. Let the entire amount be calculated and released within the aforesaid period.