RSA No.2433 of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2433 of 1998 Date of Decision: 16.9.2008 State of Punjab and others .....Appellants Vs. Gian Chand ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. H.S. Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The State of Punjab has filed this appeal, praying that the judgement and decree dated 9.1.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, partly accepting the appeal filed by the respondent and modifying the judgement and decree passed by the trial Court be set aside. The respondent joined the service as P.T.I., under the Punjab Government on 10.6.1966 but resigned on 30.4.1979. Alleging that as he fulfilled the qualifying service of 10 years, he was entitled to retiral benefits in the shape of pension, gratuity etc., he filed a suit. The appellants denied the respondent's prayer for pension and gratuity by asserting that as the respondent had voluntarily resigned from service, he was not entitled to pension, gratuity etc. On the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :- RSA No.2433 of 1998 2 “1, Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mandatory injunction prayed for ? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest ? If so, at what rate ? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is not within limitation ? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit ? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file this suit ? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPP. 8. Whether the notice under Section 80 CPC has been served upon the defendants ? OPP. 9. Relief.” After a consideration of the pleadings, the evidence and the arguments addressed, the trial Court dismissed the suit, on the ground that though the respondent had put in 12 years, 10 months and 10 days service, he was not entitled to retiral benefits, as he had resigned voluntarily. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit, the respondent filed an appeal. The first appellate Court, accepted the appeal by holding that as the respondent had completed the qualifying service of 10 years, he was entitled to pension and gratuity and Rule 7.5(1) of Chapter VIII, Vol.I of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules') did RSA No.2433 of 1998 3 not apply, as it was introduced in the year 1982, whereas the appellant resigned on 20.4.1979. The claim for gratuity was, however, declined, as time barred. Counsel for the appellants submits that Rule 7.5(1) provides that if an employee resigns voluntarily, he shall not be entitled to pension etc. As the respondent voluntarily resigned from service, he is not entitled to pension. It is submitted that there is clear distinction between resignation and retirement, as the former severs the master and servant relationship, whereas in the latter situation, the relationship subsists. Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that it was only with the enactment of the Rule 7.5(1) Chapter VIII, Vol.I, a provision was introduced to deprive an employee of pension, if he resigns voluntarily. The respondent resigned on 30.4.1979 and, therefore, the above rule would not apply to his case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgements. As noticed herein above, the first appellate Court, reversed the judgement and decree passed by the trial Court and held that the respondent was entitled to receive pension etc. as Rule 7.5(1) of Chapter VII, Vol.I of the Rules, which deprives an employee of pension and gratuity, if he retires voluntarily from service was enacted on 18.6.1982 after the respondent resigned on 30.4.1979. In a similar situation and while considering a similar plea, it was held in Mohinder Lal Puri V. State of Punjab and others, 2002(2) RSJ 181, that Rule 7.5(1) of the Rules would not apply to an employee, who has resigned prior to 19.2.1982. The controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the aforementioned judgement. As Rule RSA No.2433 of 1998 4 7.5(1) of the Rules was introduced after the respondent submitted his resignation, the principle that voluntary resignation puts an end to the master servant relationship, would not apply to the present case. As I find no reason to interfere with the judgement recorded by the first appellate Court and as no substantial question of law arises, the appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs. 16.9.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE