CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19575 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 23, 2010 Dayal Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. I. D. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner seems to be a privileged employee and has been shown extra ordinary indulgence, which has embolden him to approach this Court over and over again to ask for unreasonable and uncalled for reliefs. The petitioner is an employee, who has resigned the service twice but still has dared to make a claim for pension. His first resignation from service was to contest election. Immediately after the election, the petitioner was taken back in service, which apparently would in itself was unprecedented. Thereafter, he CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19575 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: submitted resignation again but has now come forward to seek pension. The petitioner initially had joined as Engineer and became Deputy Chief Engineer in Shipping Corporation of India. On recommendation of the Haryana Public Service Commission, the petitioner joined the Haryana Government as Functional Manager (Mechanical) w.e.f. 17.6.1983. He was promoted as General Manager and continued in the service upto 26.3.1996. The petitioner submitted his resignation from service on 27.3.1996 to contest Assembly election. The petitioner, however, did not succeed in election. On his request, he was taken back into service on 12.8.1996. Strangely, his break in service from 28.3.1996 to 15.8.1996 was also regularised. This action of the Government was put to challenge by one Devi Dayal before this Court by filing CWP No.12078 of 1997. This writ petition was allowed and the action of the Government in regularising the intervening period and condoning the break in service was set-aside. This order was passed on 2.3.1998. Soon thereafter, the petitioner submitted a resignation on 3.7.1998, which was accepted on the same date. This time, the petitioner had submitted resignation to take up the assignment as Member of Hayana Public Service Commission where he was appointed on 3.7.1998. The petitioner relinquished the charge of Member, Haryana Public Service Commission on 2.7.2004. The petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition No.1647 of 2003, claiming pensionary benefits, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide his legal notice. The claim of the petitioner for CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19575 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: grant of pension was rejected on 1.3.2004. Undeterred, the petitioner again filed a claim for pension and pensionary benefits on 2.4.2009 which was received by the department on 2.7.2009, which was rejected by a well reasoned order dated 16.10.2009. The petitioner has, thus, filed the present writ petition for quashing the order rejecting his claim for pension dated 1.3.2004 and 16.10.2009 and for grant of pension and pensionary benefits. In the reply filed, it is disclosed that the petitioner had earlier served a legal notice for the same claim in the year 2003 and had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which was disposed of with a direction to decide his legal notice. The said claim was rejected but the petitioner thereafter remained silent for over five years again to revive this claim for pension, which has been rejected by passing a well reasoned order. The operative part of the order reads as under:- “....Sh.Dayal Singh had tendered his resignation on 27.3.1996 (AN) for contesting election to the Haryana Assembly which was accepted by the State Govt. by way of order dated 3.4.1996 and as per advice of Chief Secretary to Govt. Haryana dated 23.7.1996 he was taken back in service on his request. The order of the Govt. was challenged by one Sh.Devi Dayal in CWP No.12078 of 1997 which was allowed on 2.3.1998 quashing the order dated 5.1.1997 condoning the break in service of said Sh.Dayal Singh. The Hon'ble High Court with abundant caution also observed that they are not opining any thing regarding re-appointment of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19575 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: respondent as General Manager if he could otherwise be appointed as such afresh on the date in accordance with the relevant rules & regulations. However, it was decided not to take any further decision as the said Sh.Dayal Singh had again resigned his post which was accepted by Govt. Thus, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No.12078/1997, the petitioner does not remain entitled to any pensionary benefits on the above ground as well. Therefore, in pursuance of the above facts and the provisions under Rule 4.19(a) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II, no pensionary benefits are admissible in such cases, therefore, I find no merit in the claim of Sh.Dayal Singh. Hence, the claim of pensionary benefits made through the legal notice dated 10.2.2003 having no force, stands rejected.” It is aptly stated in the reply that the present writ petition is a desperate attempt on the part of the petitioner to browbeat the system and an abuse of legal remedies by filing unending litigation and creating avoidable burden and, thus, wasting the time of the Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dealt with and dismissed. Despite above, the counsel for the petitioner had heart to make submission. One would hardly come across a person who would have the privilege of resigning his service twice but still making a claim for grant of pension. Taking a person back in service, who had submitted resignation that too to contest the election would CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19575 OF 2009 :{ 5 }: not be anything but an act of undue favour. To similar effect perhaps was the view and feeling of the Division Bench, when the action of the Government in regularising the break of service of the petitioner was put to challenge through Civil Writ Petition No. 12078 of 1997. While allowing the writ petition and quashing this act of benevolence shown to the petitioner, the Division made some telling observations, which are as follows:- “.....This judgment of the Division Bench has been reversed by the Apex Court on February 20, 1997 and the judgment is reported as The State of Haryana and ors. Vs. Ram Kumar Mann, 1997 (2) R.S.J. 520. A Full Bench of this Court (supra) has also taken the view that once the resignation has been accepted to allow an incumbent to contest an election, he cannot be allowed to withdraw the same after having been unsuccessful in the election. Apart from that it has been held by the Full Bench that as per instructions of the Government dated May 4, 1960, as reiterated by the State Government on November 21, 1996, such an incumbent whose resignation has been accepted for contesting the election, cannot be taken back in service, but he can only apply for job in the Government as an ordinary citizen. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this writ petition and quash the order dated January 05, 1997 (copy whereof is at Annexure P-10) condoning the break in service of respondent No.5. As a matter of abundant caution, we may observe that we are not opining anything regarding CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19575 OF 2009 :{ 6 }: re-appointment of respondent No.5 in service vide order dated August 12, 1996 as General Manager, if he could otherwise be appointed as such afresh on that date in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations.” The Division Bench apparently entertained a serious doubt in regard to the action of the respondents in appointing the petitioner as a General Manager as can be clearly discerned from the order reproduced above. Soon thereafter, the petitioner was conferred another privilege that too after a second resignation. He resigned the Government service to take up the appointment of Member of Haryana Public Service Commission on 3.7.1998. The observation and order of the Division Bench is dated 2.3.1998. A second resignation, which was accepted, has not been a cause for any preponderance by the petitioner while staking a claim for grant of pension for that service from which the petitioner had resigned. Despite the legal position as contained in Rule 4.19 (b) of Punjab Civil Service, Volume II, the counsel for the petitioner continued to press hard for grant of pension. He was then made to go through the provisions of Rule 4.19 (b), which categorically provides that resignation from a public service, apart from dismissal, removal etc. entails forfeiture of past service and no pension shall be granted to such a person in the aforesaid circumstances. The submission that the petitioner had rendered more than 10 years service, when he resigned and, thus, would be entitled to the grant of retiral benefits was another misconceived submission made by ignoring the provisions of Rule 4.19 (b), which is as under:- “Rule 4.19 (b)- Resignation from public service, dismissal CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19575 OF 2009 :{ 7 }: or removal from it, either under proviso (c) to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution for over anti-national misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency not due to age or failure to pass a prescribed examination, entails forfeiture of past service and no pension shall be granted in the aforementioned circumstances.” The above Rule is clear and categorical that the resignation entails forfeiture of past service. The reference to Rule to claim prorata pension on completion of 10 years qualified service is again a misconceived. In any case, this issue has now been set at rest by the Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Dr.(Mrs.) Sudha Seth, in R.S.A. No.13 of 2009 decided on 18.9.2009 and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Dass Relhan Vs. State of Haryana, 2009 (2) SCT 617. This issue, on the basis of law laid down in the case of Dr.(Mrs.)Sudha Seth (supra) and Ghanshyam Dass Relhan (supra) was considered in Regular Second Appeal No.3245 of 2008 (Jagtaran Singh Malhotra Vs. State of Punjab & another), which was dismissed on 6.5.2010. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. It is so ordered. The petitioner would pay a costs of Rs.10,000/- for filing this petition, which shall be deposited in the account of Legal Service Authority, Haryana. July 23, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE