IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.01.2009 L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 in C.W.P.No.11126 of 1998 State of Punjab and others ....Petitioner(s) Versus Mehar Singh ...Respondent(s) Present: Mr. A.S. Grewal, Addl.A.G, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate for the respondent. AND C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004 Nirmaljit Kaur ....Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondent(s) Present: Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Grewal, Addl.A.G, Punjab for the respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH JASWANT SINGH,J This judgment shall dispose of LPA No.181 of 2003 titled State of Punjab and others v. Mehar Singh and CWP No.13401 of 2004 titled Nirmaljit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others as common questions of facts and law are involved in the same. L.P.A.No.181 of 2003 In this Letters Patent Appeal, the facts are that respondent Mehar Singh was appointed as Science Master in the Education Department with the State of Punjab on 1.2.1983. After serving in various schools of the State of Punjab for more than 12 years, he submitted his resignation from service. His resignation was not accepted, therefore, he filed a writ petition bearing CWP No.3570 of 1996 praying for acceptance of his resignation and ultimately the same was accepted vide order dated 17.6.1996 (Annexure P.1) with effect from 5.9.1995. On his being denied gratuity and other pensionary benefits due to his resignation from service, L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 and #2# C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004 the respondent Mehar Singh filed a writ petition bearing CWP No.11126 of 1998. Learned Single Judge by relying upon judgments of this Court reported as 1994 (4) SLR, 59 Ganga Bishan v. State of Haryana, and 2002(4) RSJ, 440 State of Punjab v. Gurkeerat Singh,, allowed the writ petition and held that since the petitioner Mehar Singh-respondent herein had resigned after putting in more than 10 years of service, he is entitled to pension and other retiral benefits as premature retirement from service and voluntary resignation from service will have the same effect i.e one is retiring. Learned Single Judge further directed the appellant-State of Punjab to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount payable w.e.f 1.8.1998 till its payment and further the payment was to be made within six months from the receipt of copy of this order. Hence the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-State of Punjab for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 3.12.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge. C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004 Petitioner-Nirmaljit Kaur was born on 20.1.1953 and after acquiring qualification of Bachelor of Physical Education, she was selected and appointed as DPE in the Master cadre with the Punjab Education Department and joined her duty on 1.1.1979 in the pay scale of Rs.220- 500/-. After serving for more than 12 years, the petitioner due to unavoidable family circumstances resigned from service. Her resignation was accepted with effect from 20.3.1991 by the competent authority vide order dated 5.3.1991 (Annexure P.1) and consequently she was relieved from service. It is alleged by the petitioner that under the Punjab Civil Services, she is entitled for pension and other pensionary benefits on completion of 10 years of qualifying service. It is further alleged that despite number of representations, the claim of the petitioner for retiral benefits was not considered by the respondents and ultimately a registered notice dated 15.3.2004 was served upon them. Respondents-State of Punjab filed their reply and denied the claim of the petitioner by raising a preliminary objection on the ground that she had resigned from service and her resignation was accepted and as per sub Rule (1) of Rule 7.5 of the Punjab Civil Services (As applicable to Punjab), Volume I, Part I (For L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 and #3# C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004 short “PCS Rules”), resignation from service for a post entails forfeiture of past service, therefore, she is not entitled for any pensionary benefits and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Thus in both the abovesaid cases, the question to be determined is as to whether a government employee, who has resigned from service, is entitled to grant of pension and other retiral benefits. Learned counsel for the State of Punjab has argued that the government employee, who resigns from service, is not entitled to grant of pension and other retiral benefits in view of a specific Rule 7.5 (1) of the PCS Rules entailing forfeiture of past service. It has been further argued that in the judgments cited and relied upon by learned counsel on behalf of the government employees, who had resigned from service and were held entitled to grant of pension, the effect of Rule 7.5 (1) of the PCS Rules was not considered. Learned counsel further relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as 2004(9) SCC 461 Reserve Bank of India and another v. Cecil Dennis Solomon and Another, 2001(4) SCC 309, Union of India and others v. Rakesh Kumar and (2005) 8 SCC, Union of India and others v. Braj Nandan Singh, 325. On the other hand, counsel for the government employee has argued that the Government employees, on completion of 10 years of qualifying service, are entitled to the grant of pension and other retiral benefits in view of Rule 6.16 (2) of PCS Rules and the law laid down by learned Single Benches of this Court in judgments reported as 1994 (4) SLR Ganga Bishan v. State of Haryana 59, 2002(4) RSJ State of Punjab v. Gurkeerat Singh 440, 1998(4) SCT Jagdish Mitter v. State of Punjab 157, 2002(4) SCT State of Haryana and another v. Madan Pal Ahlawat and a Division Bench Judgment reported as 1997(4) SCT Shagara Singh v. State of Punjab 532. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Before we proceed any further, it is necessary to reproduce Sub Rules (1) & (2) of Rule 7.5 of the PCS Rules relating to forfeiture of service on resignation. Relevant extracted Rules are reproduced below: 7.5(1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service. L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 and #4# C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004 (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 for pension. (3) xx xx xx (4) xx xx xx (5) xx xx xx (6) xx xx xx A bare reading of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 7.5 of the PCS Rules reveals that a resignation from service for a post once accepted entails forfeiture of past service. A reading of Sub Rule (2), which is in the nature of an exception, reveals that the 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 for pension. It is also pertinent to mention here that the grant of pension is regulated by the Rules contained in Part I of Volume-II of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (As applicable to Punjab). Chapter II to Chapter VI of the same relates to grant of ordinary pensions, which are relevant for the discussion herein. Chapter II provides for general provisions relating to grant of pension. Chapter III provides for conditions of qualifying service for pension namely the service must be under the Government and on substantive and permanent basis and it must be paid by the Government. Chapter IV provides for period of reckoning of service of pension and Chapter V lays down the different kinds of pension namely compensation pension, invalid pension, superannuation pension and retiring pension and the conditions of their grant. Chapter VI provides for determination of the amount of pension Now, so far as the cases cited and relied upon on behalf of the employees are concerned, these are as under: In Ganga Bishan's case (supra), the petitioner was permitted to retire as Sweeper from the Directorate of Animal Husbandry, Haryana w.e.f May 31, 1990 after rendering 18 years, 5 months and 15 days of service and the question framed in that case was, whether the petitioner was L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 and #5# C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004 entitled to pension and gratuity etc for the period for which he had already served the Department. This was answered by the learned Single Judge in the affirmative and he was held entitled to the grant of pension in view of the provisions of Rule 6.16 (2) as contained in Chapter VI of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (As applicable to Haryana), Volume II, Part I and he was held entitled to the grant of gratuity etc in accordance with the Rules and the objection of the respondents that he was not entitled to pension and gratuity as he had not completed 12 years of qualifying service, was not sustained. In Gurkeerat Singh's case(supra), a government employee submitted his resignation on 18.2.1975 after putting in 19 years and 04 months of service as Constable and after relying on Ganga Bishan's case (supra), it was held by the learned Single Judge in the Regular Second Appeal that a person becomes entitled to the grant of pension on completion of 10 years of qualifying service and the RSA of the State of Punjab was dismissed. In Jagdish Mitter's case (supra), the petitioner was appointed as Patwari in February 1944 and after partition of the country in 1947, he was promoted as Clerk. After putting in service almost 22 years, he took voluntary retirement in 1966 while working in the office of D.C, Gurdaspur. Learned Single Judge held that the petitioner was entitled to pension on account of his having completed 22 years of service and the respondent- Government of Punjab having accepted his request for voluntary retirement. It is, thus, clear that Jagdish Mitter's case (supra) is a case of voluntary retirement. In Madan Pal Ahlawat's case (supra), an employee filed a suit for seeking declaration to the effect that he is entitled to retirement pension and gratuity on the basis of 11 years, 5 months and 15 days of service rendered by him. After relying upon Ganga Bishan's case (supra), and another Single Bench Judgment of this Court in case of Haryana State v. Ex-Constable Jai Singh vide RSA No.2682 of 2001, decided on 26.9.2001, learned Single Judge held that the government employee, who had resigned after completion of more than 10 years of service was entitled L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 and #6# C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004 to proportionate pension as provided under Rule 6.16 Sub Rule (2) of the Punjab Civil Services. In Shagara Singh's case (supra), petitioner Shagara Singh was working in a government aided school. His conditions of service were governed by the provisions of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognized Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979 and the Punjab Privately Managed Recognized schools Employees (Security of Service ) Rules, 1981. He sought voluntary retirement after rendering more than 23 years of service. His claim for pension and other benefits was denied on the ground that he had resigned and had not retired from service on account of his failing eye sight and in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act and the Rules, the Government of Punjab had promulgated a Retiral Benefits Scheme and the petitioner had exercised his option for pension under the framed scheme. In that case, respondents had invoked the provisions of Rule 7.5 (1) of the PCS Rules to deny the grant of pension and other retiral benefits on the ground that the petitioner had resigned from service. A Division Bench of this Court found that the petitioner had rendered more than 23 years of service and treated him as having actually resigned as was clear from the entries in his service book. The Court further held that there is no rule for reading aforesaid Rule 7.5 of the PCS Rules into the Retiral Pension Scheme meant for the employees of the aided schools and in these facts and circumstances, the writ petition was allowed holding that the petitioner, on account of his more than 23 years of service, was held entitled to grant of pension and gratuity etc. From the above discussion, it can be seen that in the judgments of the learned Single Judges in Ganga Bishan's case (supra), Gurkeerat Singh's cae (supra) and Madan Pal Ahlawat's case (supra), the effect of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 7.5 of the PCS Rules was not considered at all and therefore, the said judgment cannot be of any assistance to the case of respondent Mehar Singh in the letters patent appeal and the petitioner- Nirmaljit Kaur in the writ petition. In Jagdish Mitter's case(supra), the facts are distinguishable as it was a case of voluntary retirement besides the fact that effect of Rule L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 and #7# C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004 7.5 of the PCS Rules was not considered in that case, therefore, this judgment is also not of much assistance to the cause of the government employees. In Shagara Singh's case (supra), the facts are clearly distinguishable from the present two cases and therefore, the said judgment cannot be relied upon. In Reserve Bank of India's case(supra) relied upon by the State of Punjab, respondents were employees of the Reserve Bank of India and were working in various capacities. They rendered their resignation in 1988. Subsequent to their resignation, Pension Regulations came to be operative in the year 1990. By the said Pension Regulations, prescriptions were made for granting pension to certain categories of employees. Regulation 2(12) provided that retirement means retirement in terms of the Regulation 26 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff Regulation), 1948 and Regulation 18 thereof provided forfeiture of service on resignation or dismissal or termination. Regulation 26 of the Staff Regulation, 1948 was amended w.e.f 7.2.1992 and (3-A) and (3-B) were added, which provided that an employee, on completion of 20 years of service, could seek voluntary retirement and the same to be valid was required to be accepted by the competent authority. The employees, who had since rendered resignation on completion of 20 years of service, though not completed 50 years of age and were ineligible in view of Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, which entailed forfeiture of resignation, filed writ petitions before the High Court questioning the legality of Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations for grant of pension and claiming benefit under the amended Regulations (3-A) of the Regulation 26 of the Staff Regulation, 1948. Writ petitions were allowed by the High Court and the appeals filed by the Reserve Bank were allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court thereby dismissing writ petitions filed by the employees. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 9 and 10 that under Regulation 26 of the Staff Regulation, four types of retirements were contemplated i.e (a) retirement on superannuation (b) compulsory retirement on invalidation © compulsory retirement and (d) voluntary retirement. Resignation did not fit into any of these categories. It was further held that voluntary retirement and resignation involve voluntary acts on the part of employee to leave service L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 and #8# C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004 but they operate differently as resignation can be tendered at any time but in the case of voluntary retirement, it can only be sought after rendering prescribed period of qualifying service. It was further laid down that in the case of resignation, normally retiral benefits are being denied but in the case of voluntary retirement, the same are admissible. In Rakesh Kumar's case (supra), respondent Rakesh Kumar was a member of the Border Security Force and he resigned from service under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, 1969 after serving for more than 10 years but less than 20 years. For grant of pension, members of BSF are governed by CCS (Pension) Rules. Contention was raised on behalf of the employees that they were entitled to grant of pension in view of Rule 49 (2)(b) of (Pension) Rules, which provided that qualifying service for getting pension was 10 years; and further in view of the GOI and MHA General order dated 27.12.1995 intrepretting Rule 19 of the BSF Rules 1969 to imply that in case of acceptance of any resignation of an employee after a lapse of 10 years of service, he is entitled to get pension. Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the case of the employees and held in paras 16 and 20 of the judgment that members of BSF, who had resigned from service, were not entitled to any pension if they were not otherwise entitled to get pension under CCS (Pension) Rules. It was held that Rule 49 (2)(b) only covered cases of Government Servants, who retire on superannuation after the prescribed age, voluntary retirement after 20 years of qualifying service and such other cases as provided under the Rules. It was further held that the circular dated 27.12.1995 was only applicable to members of BSF, who were otherwise entitled to get pensionary benefits under the CCS Rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that the respondents, who had resigned from service, were not entitled to grant of any pension in view of Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules specifically providing forfeiture of past service upon resignation. In Braj Nandan's case (supra), respondent Braj Nandan Singh was serving as temporary Sorter in the Railway Mail Service, 'U' Division, Muzaffarpur with effect from 14.10.1959 and he tendered his resignation on 16.5.1977 to contest the election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly and his resignation was accepted vide letter dated 17.5.1977 and in that case Sub L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 and #9# C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004 Rules (1) & (2) of Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (For short “Central Civil Services”) were under consideration, which provided forfeiture of past service on resignation. The language of Sub Rules (1) and (2) of Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services as para materia to Sub Rules (1) and (2) of Rule 7.5 of the PCS Rules and after examining the provisions of Rules (1) and (2) of Regulation 26, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 5 & 6 of the judgment that after acceptance of the resignation, the past service stands forfeited. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Union of India was accepted and the judgment of the High Court affirming the order of Tribunal was set aside. Relevant paras 5 & 6 are reproduced below: “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 ot 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 L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 and #10# C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004 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 serviuce. 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 stature 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. 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 legislative. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent.” In view of the aforesaid legal position settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that a government employee, who has resigned from service, is not entitled to grant of pension and other retiral benefits in view of Rule 7.5 of PCS Rules. Still further, in our opinion, provisions of Rule 6.16 (2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, as relied upon in the judgment on behalf of the employee/government servant lays down the amount of pension admissible to a government employee, who has retired from service, and does not confer an independent right to claim pension. We find that the reference to Rule 6.16(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules in the judgments relied upon on behalf of the employee/government servant is provided in the L.P.A. No.181 of 2003 and #11# C.W.P.No.13401 of 2004 Rules applicable in the State of Haryana only. Thus reference to Rule 6.16 (2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules on behalf of the respondent Mehar Singh in the letters patent appeal and the petitioner Nirmaljit Kaur in the writ petition for grant of pension on completion of 10 years service is totally misplaced, as in the Punjab Civil Services Rules applicable to State of Punjab, there is no Rule 6.16(2) and it only exists in the State of Haryana. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant-State of Punjab is allowed, the judgment dated 3.12.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition bearing CWP No.11126 of 1998 filed by Mehar Singh is dismissed. Writ Petition bearing CWP No.13401 of 2004 filed by the petitioner Nirmaljit Kaur is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( JASWANT SINGH ) ` ` JUDGE January 7th , 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) manoj JUDGE