CWP No. 13780 of 2003 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13780 of 2003 Date of Decision: August 11, 2011 Dr. Surinderjit Kaur …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The short question which arises for determination in the present case filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the petitioner would remain entitled to pensionary benefits after resigning her post of Medical Officer. 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer on ad hoc basic on 19.10.1976. Thereafter, she applied for a regular post and appeared before the Punjab Public Service Commission. Accordingly, she was appointed on regular basis on 03.11.1978. On 18.02.1991 she submitted her resignation, which was accepted w.e.f. 31.10.1990. 3. On 02.04.2003, the petitioner made a represenation/ legal CWP No. 13780 of 2003 -2- notice through her counsel claiming that she is entitled to pensionary benefits as she has rendered more than 14 years of service. In support of her claim, she placed reliance on Rule 6.16 of the Punjab Civil Services Rule, Vollume II (for brevity 'the PCS Rule'). However, on 20.05.2003, her representation was rejected holding that unless she has 20 years' service or more than 20 years of service or has attained the age of 50 years, she would not be entitled to pension under Rule 3 of the Punjab Premature Retirement Rules, 1975 (for brevity '1975 Rules'). As she did not fulfill the aforesaid condition, her representation was rejected. 4. In response to notice of motion having been issued, the respondents have filed their written statement and have reiterated the stand that as per the provision of Rule 3(2) of 1975 Rules, she would have 20 years' qualifying service or have attained the age of 50 years. It was only then that she could serve three months' notice in writing by seeking voluntary retirement. Respondents have also contested the claim of the petitioner that she has rendered 14 years of service. According to the respondents, she has rendered service for a period of 11 years, 11 months and 28 days which obviously excludes the ad hoc period from 19.10.1976 to 03.11.1978 because she has worked on ad hoc basis for the aforesaid period. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book with their able assistance. The issue which needs determination is whether a civil servant could claim pension as a matter of right after tendering resignation. The answer to the aforesaid question has to be in the negative because if a civil servant tenders his CWP No. 13780 of 2003 -3- resignation then it result into forfeiture of his service. In that regard reliance may be placed on Rule 7.5 of the PCS Rules, which reads as under: “Forfeiture of Service on resignation 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. (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.” xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 6. A perusal of the aforesaid rule would show that the resignation from a service or a post entails forfeiture of past service. However, resignation can be permitted to be withdrawn in public interest by the appointing authority. Another exception carved out by Rule 7.5 (2) is in case resignation has been tendered in order to enable an employee with proper permission, another appointment whether temporary or permanent under the Government where service qualifies for pension. However, a resignation pure and simple voluntarily tendered by a civil servant would result into forfeiture of service. There may be ample reasons for engrafting such a rule. An employee who CWP No. 13780 of 2003 -4- joined the civil services acquires various skills and training to discharge the duties of his post at the expense of the State. For example a doctor while undergoing degree course enters his internship then enters government job. If he wishes to leave job before rendering 20 years of service as per 1975 Rules then he has to suffer forfeiture of his service. The State cannot be left high and dry at the option of the employee to dessert the post by resignation. The Constitutional validity of Rule 7.5 of the PCS Rules was considered by a Single Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Bhim Raj Goyal v. State of Punjab and others (2005) 1 SCT 327 and the same has been upheld. A Full Bench of this Court has also taken the same view in the case of State of Haryana v. Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha Seth (2011) 1 PLR 650. Therefore, we are of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. We are further of the view that 1975 Rules or Rule 6.16 of the PCS Rules would have no application to the facts of the present case because it is not a case of pre-mature retirement nor any calculation, which are provided in Rule 6.16 of the 1975 Rules are required to be made. There is, thus, no merit in the petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE August 11, 2011 Atul