CWP No.13162 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 18.03.2010 Gulab Singh ... Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Gulab Singh, Petitioner-in-person. Mr.RKS Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. The petitioner was appointed as JBT Teacher on 01.10.1963. During service, the petitioner improved his qualification. On 01.03.1976, the petitioner submitted his resignation along with three months notice which was subsequently withdrawn on the same day. He applied for leave from 06.08.1976 to 01.12.1997. After availing leave, the petitioner submitted his joining report on 02.12.1997. However, he was not allowed to join duty. He served a legal notice on 24.01.1998. In reply whereof the petitioner was informed by the respondents that his resignation has been accepted vide order dated 21.03.1980. The order dated 21.03.1980 was challenged by filing a Civil Suit which was decreed on 16.11.2000 and the petitioner was allowed to join duty from the date of his joining report. Appeal filed by the respondents against the decree dated 16.11.2000 was accepted by the learned Lower Appellate Court and the suit of the petitioner CWP No.13162 of 2008 2 dismissed. The petitioner challenged the judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court before this Court which came to be dismissed on 22.09.2006. The SLP filed by the petitioner against the judgments aforesaid has also been dismissed on 5.2.2007. The petitioner made representation on 29.09.2007 for releasing his pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits with effect from 21.03.1980 which has been rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 02.07.2008 (Annexure P-7) on the ground that the petitioner had not retired from service and that the claim of the petitioner is belated. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition claiming pension and other retiral benefits from 01.03.1980 with all consequential benefits with interest. In the reply, the respondents have reiterated the averments made in the impugned order. It is submitted that the petitioner has submitted his resignation and that he is not retired from service, therefore, he is not entitled for pension. It is further submitted that in the civil suit, the petitioner has lost the legal battle upto Hon'ble Supreme Court. Pension rules envisage payment of pension to a government servant, who retires or retired from service. The petitioner did not retire from service rather he has resigned from service. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner is grossly belated. I have heard the petitioner in person and the learned counsel for the respondents at length. The petitioner, who is appearing in person, has placed reliance CWP No.13162 of 2008 3 on the judgments of learned Single Benches of this Court rendered in the cases of Mehar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2003 (1) SCT,453 and Haryana State through Collector, District Bhiwani, Bhiwani Vs. Madan Pal Ahlawat, 2003 (1) SCT, 327 to contend that the petitioner is entitled to gratuity and other pensionary benefits on completion of 10 years qualifying service. He further contended that his resignation was accepted and he was permitted to quit the job by the government, therefore, he is entitled to pension. In Mehar Singh's case (supra) it has been held as under:- “Since the petitioner resigned after he had put in more than 10 years of service, he is entitled to pension and other retiral benefits as premature reitrement from service and voluntary resignation from service will have the same effect i.e. one is retiring. So, this writ petition is allowed. Respondent-State of Punjab is directed to release the pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner. He will be given interest @ 9% per annum on this amount payable with effect from 1.8.1998 till its payment. Payment shall be made to him within six months of the receipt of copy of this order.” The above said judgments have been relied upon by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Om Parkash Vs. The Financial Commissioner, 2007 (4) Services Law Reporter, 706, wherein the following observations have made:- CWP No.13162 of 2008 4 “After considering the observations made in Mehar Singh (supra) and Haryana State Vs. Madan Pal Ahlawat (supra), we are of the view that the petitioner who has resigned from the post of District Attorney is entitled to the proportionate pension with respect to the service he has served i.e. 13 years 6 months and 25 days, as is applicable to the State of Haryana. He is, thus, entitled to the benefit as per provisions 6.12 (2) of the Punjab Civil Services, Volume-II (as applicable to State of Haryana). We, therefore, allow the present writ petition and quash Annexure P-8. The retiral benefits i.e. Pension, Gratuity and leave encashment etc. be made payable to the petitioner within four months from the date of passing of this order.” The above observations are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In this case, the petitioner has rendered more than 16 years of service before he submitted his resignation. For the reasons recorded and the judgments referred to above, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 02.07.2008 (Annexure P-7) is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to the proportionate pension. The retiral benefits i.e. proportionate pension, gratuity and leave encahshment etc. be paid to the petitioner along with CWP No.13162 of 2008 5 interest @ 6% per annum on the amount found payable with effect from the date of retirement i.e. 21.03.1980, within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the competent authority 18.03.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES