CWP NO. 10008 OF 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP NO. 10008 OF 2010 DECIDED ON- 13.01.2011 Rajbir Singh ……PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ……RESPONDENTS Coram HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. MAHESH GROVER, J(Oral) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated 9.3.2010 vide which he has been denied the retiral benefits. The petitioner joined the services of the respondents on 20.1.1977 as a class IVth employee. The services were regularized on 1.1.1978 and after submitting more than 32 years of service, he submitted his resignation on 24.9.2009 when he attained more than 57 years of age and was to retire shortly. The reasons given for resignation was that he wished to contest the Assembly Elections. This fact is, however, not germane to the controversy as the fact remains that he resigned from the service after putting in exactly 32 years 8 months and 4 days. He prayed that since he has completed the qualifying period of service, he is entitled to the pensionary benefits which were declined by virtue of the impugned order Annexure P7 on 9.3.2010. Upon issuance of notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply, pleading therein, that in view of Rule 3.17A(d) readwith Rule 4.19 a of Civil Services Rules Vol. II, the petitioner is not CWP NO. 10008 OF 2010 2 entitled to the grant of any benefit of pension as he had voluntarily resigned from the services and on this count his entire previous service stands forfeited. Rule 3.17 A(d) and 4.19(a) are extracted here below for ready reference:- “ Rule 3.17A(d) Resignation from the public service or dismissal or removal from it for misconduct, insolvency, insufficiency, not due to age, or failure to pass a prescribed examination will entail forfeiture of past service in terms of rule 4.19(a) of Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume-II.” “Rule 4.19[(a) Resignation from public service, dismissal or removal from it, either under proviso (C) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution for over anti-national activities such as sabotage, espionage etc. or for misconduct, insolvency, insufficiency 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: Provided that in the cases of those Government employees whose removal or dismissal results from participation in other objectionable activities affecting or endangering the security of the State, such proportionate pension may be granted as may be recommended by the Committee of the Advisors constituted under the Haryana Civil Services (Safe guarding of National Security) Rules, 1971].” Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned action of the respondent is totally arbitrary and contrary to the judgments rendered by this Court and reported as OM PARKASH V. STATE OF PUNJAB 2006(4) RECENT SERVICES JUDGMENTS 180, GULAB SINGH V. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 2010 (4) SERVICE CASES TODAY 145 AND OM PARKASH V. FINANCIAL CWP NO. 10008 OF 2010 3 COMMISSIONER AND PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 2007(2) SERVICE CASES TODAY 422. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the rule 3.17A(d) and 4.19(a) to justify the action of denying the pension to the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order as also the rules which have been produced before this Court. The controversy which has been raised herein this petition is longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in 2007(2) SERVICE CASES TODAY 422(supra) while placing reliance upon an earlier decision of this Court in Haryana State v. Madan Pal Ahlawat reported in 2003(1) SCT 327 and in similar circumstances, accepted the plea of the petitioner therein and granted him the pensionary benefits. Likewise in 2010(4) SERVICE CASES TODAY 145 single bench of this Court while placing reliance on the earlier judgments of this Court has also held likewise. In MEHAR SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB 2003(1) SERVICE CASES TODAY 453 this court observed as follows:- “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 retirement 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.” CWP NO. 10008 OF 2010 4 And while placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments this Court observed in OM PARKASH V. THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, 2007(2) SCT 422, 2007(4) SERVICES LAW REPORTER 706 as follows:- “After considering the observations made in Mehar Singh (supra) and Haryana State v. 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.” If the facts of the instant case are to be seen, then they are not different from the ones which were taken into consideration by this Court while making the observation in the aforesaid judgments. There is, thus, no reason to accept the stand of the respondents which on the face of it is totally arbitrary, as a person who has rendered more than 32 years of service cannot be denied this benefit of pension. Moreoso, in almost identical situation this Court observed that merely because a person used a word resignation instead of a more proper term of retirement, he could not be denied this benefit of pension. The observations were made by a Division Bench of this Court in Om Parkash v. State of Punjab's case (supra). Having regard to the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to the pension and other retiral benefits CWP NO. 10008 OF 2010 5 which shall be released to him forthwith. 13.01.2011 ( MAHESH GROVER) mamta JUDGE