IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 3679 of 2007 Date of Decision: 10.5.2010. Gurbaksh Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Petitioner was recruited as a Peon on 2.4.1973. He was promoted as Clerk on 30.3.1981. Petitioner submitted resignation on 28.10.1992 which was accepted on 28.2.1993. At the time of acceptance of his resignation, petitioner had put in 19 years 10 months and 26 days of service. The petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 36,0,96/- on account of G.P.F and Rs. 6540/- against G.I.S. It is stated that no other amount on account of pension was ever paid. The petitioner accordingly served a legal notice dated 25.5.2004 for grant of pensionary benefits. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that on his resignation his past service stands forfeited vide the reply dated 11.2.2005. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction for payment of the pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits. The respondents have reiterated their stand in the reply filed, relying upon Rule 4.19-A. It is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to the pensionary benefits. CWP. No. 3679 of 2007 -2- This controversy is settled by various judgements of this Court rendered in case of Haryana State through Collector, District Bhiwani, Bhiwani Vs. Madan Pal Ahlawat reported as 2003(1)SCT 327, wherein considering the similar question, this Court has held as under:- “3. On the other hand, Mr. Amritpal has submitted that the matter is squarely covered by a number of decisions of this Court. He has placed reliance on a Single Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Haryana State through Collector Jind & Another v. Ex. Const. Jai Singh No. 244 vide R.S.A. No. 2682 of 2001 decided on 26.9.2001. In that case, a fter considering the import of Rule 6.16(2), it has been held that the respondent- plaintiff therein had been rightly held to be entitled to all the retiral benefits, including pension and gratuity. In this case, the Constable voluntarily resigned from service, after putting in 13 years of service. The same provision was also considered by this Court in the case of Ganga Bishan Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1994 (3) SCT 154 (P&H): 1994 (4) SLR 59. In that case, the petitioner had retired after completion of 18 years, 5 months and 15 days of service. It has been held that the petitioner was entitled to the grant of pension, in view of the provisions of Rule 6.16(2). He was also entitled to the grant of gratuity in accordance with the provisions of the rules. In the case of Jagdish Mitter Vs. State of Punjab, 1998(4) SCT 157, the Single Bench of this Court has again held that a person who has put in more than 10 years of service is entitled to the pension even though he voluntarily retires or resigns voluntarily. Rule 6.16(2) has also been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Babu Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others in C.M. No. 10362 of 1999 in CWP No. 2890 of 1997. In that case, it has been held by the Division Bench that a CWP. No. 3679 of 2007 -3- government employee becomes eligible for pension on completion of 10 years of service.” A similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in case of Om Parkash Vs. The Financial Commissioner reported as 2007(4) 706, wherein following observations have been made:- “ Learned counsel further referred to the judgement passed in Haryana State Vs. Madan Pal Ahlawat reported in 2003(1) RSJ 490: (2003 (4) SLR 583 (P&H) wherein his Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Nijjar while dealing with considered Rule 4.19(a) and 6.16(2) observed that Rule 4.19(a) of Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol.II Part II would apply only in cases where a resignation is submitted by a govt. servant to avoid an order of dismissal or removal from service either under provisio C to Article 311 (2) for anti national activities as sabotage, espionage etc. for misconduct. This provision cannot possibly be made applicable to a voluntary resignation from service for domestic reason. Even in case of resignation, the case would clearly fall under Rule 6.16(2) of the Rules. Since the respondent, resigned from service due to domestic reasons having put in more than 10 years of service, he was clearly entitled to proportionate pension as provided under Rule 6.16(2).” In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to determine the proportionate pension payable to the petitioner on the basis of period of service rendered by the petitioner before the acceptance of his resignation and pensionary benefits be released in his favour within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 10.5.2010. lucky