IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 7680/2008 Reserved on: 27.7.2010 Decided on:2.8.2010 _____________________________________________ Damodar Dass. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was appointed as a Forest Guard in the Forest Division, Kullu with effect from 7.9.1957. He tendered his resignation on 21.10.1977 (Annexure R-1). The same was accepted on 9.1.1978 with effect from 23.10.1977. 2. Mr. H. K. Paul has strenuously argued that the resignation of his client be treated under rules 48-A and 48-B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1976. He then contended that after treating the application 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 of the petitioner seeking retirement under these provisions, his pensionary/retiral benefits be paid to him. 3. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioner has tendered his resignation and under rule 26 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which entails forfeiture of past service. He further contended that petitioner has tendered his resignation, which was accepted and neither rules 48-A and 48-B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 nor provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1976 are attracted. He lastly contended that the present petition is barred by delay and laches since the same has been filed after 23 years of the cause of action in the year 1977. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard on 7.9.1957. He tendered his resignation on 23.10.1977, which was accepted on 9.1.1978 by the competent authority with effect from 23.10.1977. It has come in the reply that the petitioner has worked only upto 22.10.1977. It will be apt at this stage to reproduce rule 26 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which reads thus: 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.” 3 6. 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 action of the petitioner to tender resignation was volunteer. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner was either misled or influenced while tendering his resignation. The expression used in Annexure R-1 is resignation. Once the resignation has been accepted, it entails forfeiture of entire past service and the incumbent is not entitled to pensionary/retiral benefits. Since the petitioner has tendered his resignation in these circumstances neither rules 48-A and 48-B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 nor provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1976 are attracted. 7. Petitioner’s resignation was accepted with effect from 23.10.1977. Present petition has been filed before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal after 23 years. The Court is of the considered opinion that the same is barred by delay and laches. No cogent and convincing reasons have been given by the petitioner in para 5 of the original application for condonation of delay. There is no merit in the submission of Mr. H.K. Paul that the petitioner’s fundamental right to seek pension has been violated. Since the petitioner has tendered resignation, his entire past service stood forfeited. Petitioner knew the consequences when he submitted application Annexure R-1 dated 23.10.1977 tendering his resignation. Mr. H.K. Paul has also argued that the resignation could not be accepted by the Divisional Forest Officer. 4 This plea has not been raised by the petitioner in his petition and the same cannot be permitted to be taken at the stage of hearing without putting the State to notice. 8. No other point was urged. 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed on merits as well as on delay and laches. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 2.8. 2010 *awasthi*