STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus GURBARAN SINGH
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 839, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
839
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
v.
GURBARAN SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 2411 of 2019)
MARCH 01, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Pensionary benefits – Claim of – Respondent working as
pharmacist in the State Health Services on regular basis, tendered
his resignation – Acceptance of resignation, however respondent
not granted pension and service benefits but only gratuity and
Provident Fund – Suit by respondent seeking pensionary benefits –
Suit decreed and issuance of direction to the appellant to pay
pensionary benefits – Said order upheld by courts below – On
appeal, held: In case of resignation from service or a post, unless
the matter was covered u/r.26(2) of the Central Civil Service
(Pension) Rules, it would entail forfeiture of past service – Since
the past service would stand forfeited, the same would be excluded
from the period of qualifying service, and as such for deciding the
entitlement to pension, the employee would not have the qualifying
period of service – Thus, the order passed by the courts below is set
aside – However, amount made over to respondent would not be
recovered from him – Punjab Civil Services Rules – r. 7.5(1) – Central
Civil Service (Pension) Rules – r. 26.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In case of resignation from service or a post,
unless the matter was covered under Rule 26(2) of the Central
Civil Service (Pension) Rules, it would entail forfeiture of past
service. Since the past service
would stand forfeited, the same
would be excluded from the period of qualifying service, and as
such for deciding the question of entitlement to pension, the
employee would not have the qualifying period of service.
[Para 9][843-B, C]
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 839
839
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
840                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
1.2 The counsel for the appellant is absolutely right on the
scope and interpretation of Rule 7.5(1) of the Rules. The
respondent did not seriously contest the matter on the scope
and interpretation of Rule 7.5(1) of the Rules. The judgment and
order passed by the High Court is set aside and the suit is
dismissed. The amount made over to the respondent in May,
2018, after the judgment of the High Court, would not be
recovered from him, but no further payments would be released
or paid to the respondent. [Paras 10, 11][843-D-G]
Union of India and others v. Braj Nandan Singh (2005)
8 SCC 325 : [2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 356 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[ 2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 356
referred to
Para 6
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2411
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2017 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second
Appeal No. 1576 of 2015.
Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Kumar Shashank, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Vishal Prasad, Advs. for
the Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 31.08.2017
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular
Second Appeal No.1576 of 2015.
3. The respondent was appointed as a pharmacist by the Director
Health Services, Punjab on 05.09.1975 in the
pay-scale of Rs.140-6-
1030 on regular basis.  During his tenure the respondent was posted at
various districts. While being posted at Ferozepur, he tendered his
resignation by letter dated 27.06.1986.  The resignation was accepted
by the Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Muktsar, Punjab. The respondent,
thereafter, filed various representations contending that he was entitled
to pension and service benefits but was granted only gratuity and General
Provident Fund.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
841
4. The respondent being aggrieved by non grant of pension, filed
Civil Suit No.74 of 2009 claiming pensionary benefits in respect of service
rendered by him.  Since the appellants failed to file written statement,
their defense was struck off.  On 16.11.2012 the Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Bathinda, decreed the suit and directed the appellants to pay to
the respondent pensionary benefits with interest @ 9% per annum from
the date of decree.
5. The decision of the Trial Court was appealed against by the
appellants by filing Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2013 before the Additional
District Judge, Bathinda, which also came to be dismissed on 23.12.2014.
The judgments rendered by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were
challenged by filing Second Appeal No.1576 of 2015 in the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.  It was submitted by the appellant
that the matter was covered by Rule 7.5(1) of the Punjab Civil Services
Rules, Volume-I, Part-I (for short ‘the Rules’) in terms of which no
retiral benefits would be admissible to an employee who resigned from
service. The submission was rejected and the High Court dismissed said
Second Appeal on 31.08.2017. The view taken by the High Court is
presently under challenge.
6. We have heard Ms. Uttara Babbar, learned advocate for the
State and Mr. Kumar Shashank, learned advocate for the respondent.
Ms. Babbar relied upon the decision of this Court in Union of India
and others vs. Braj Nandan Singh1, which
considered Rule 26 of the
Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules (‘CCS Rules’ for short) and held
that resignation from service would entail forfeiture of past service.
7. Sub-Rules (1) and (2) of Rule 7.5 of the Rules which are
relevant for the present purposes are to the following effect:-
“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.”
8. In Braj Nandan Singh1 a pari materia provision viz. Rule 26
of CCS Rules came up for consideration.  Para 5 of the decision was as
under:-
1 (2005) 8 SCC 325
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. v. GURBARAN SINGH
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
842                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
“5. In order to appreciate rival submissions Rule 26 which is the
pivotal provision needs to be quoted. The same reads as under:
“26. Forfeiture of service on resignation.—(1) Resignation
from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in
the 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.”
Rule 26 as the heading itself shows relates to forfeiture of service
on resignation. In clear terms it provides that resignation from a
service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public
interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service.
The language is couched in mandatory terms. However, sub-rule
(2) is in the nature of an exception. It provides that 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. Admittedly this is not the case in the present appeal.
Rule 5 on which great emphasis was laid down by the learned
counsel for the respondent deals with regulation of claims to
pension or family pension. Qualifying service is dealt with
in
Chapter III. The conditions subject to which service qualifies are
provided in Rule 14. Chapter V deals with classes of pensions
and conditions governing their grant. The effect of Rule 26 sub-
rules (1) and (2) cannot be lost sight of while deciding the question
of entitlement to pension. The High Court was not justified in its
conclusion that the rule was being torn out of context. After the
past service is forfeited the same has to be excluded from the
period of qualifying service. The language of Rule 26 sub-rules
(1) and (2) is very clear and unambiguous. It is trite law that all
the provisions of a statute have to be read together and no particular
provision should be treated as superfluous. That being the position
after the acceptance of resignation, in terms of Rule 26 sub-rule
(1) the past service stands forfeited. That being so, it has to be
held that for the purpose of deciding question of entitlement to
pension the respondent did not have the qualifying period of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
843
service. There is no substance in the plea of the learned counsel
for the respondent that Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) has limited
operation and does not wipe out entitlement to pension as quantified
in Rule 49. The said rule deals with amount of pension and not
with entitlement.”
9. It was thus clearly laid down that in case of resignation from
service or a post, unless the matter was covered under Sub-Rule 2 of
Rule 26 of CCS Rules, it would entail forfeiture of past service.  Since
the past service would stand forfeited, the same would be excluded
from the period of qualifying service, and as such for deciding the question
of entitlement to pension, the employee would not have the qualifying
period of service.
10. We see force in the submission advanced by Ms. Babbar,
learned advocate for the appellant. She is absolutely right on the scope
and interpretation of Rule 7.5(1) of the Rules and the decision relied
upon completely supports her submissions.  Mr. Kumar Shashank, learned
advocate for the respondent did not seriously contest the matter on the
scope and interpretation of Rule 7.5(1) of the Rules, and finally submitted
that whatever monetary benefits the respondent had received in terms
of the orders passed by the courts below may not be recovered from
him.  We are given to understand that in May, 2018 i.e. after the judgment
of the High Court, which is presently under appeal, an amount of
Rs.3,94,474.89 was made over to the respondent.
11.
Considering the totality of the circumstances we direct:-
a)
This appeal stands allowed. The judgment and order dated
31.08.2017 passed by the High Court is set aside and
Civil Suit No.74 of 2009 filed by the respondent before the
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bathinda stands dismissed.
b)
The amount which was made over to the respondent in
May, 2018, as aforesaid, shall not be recovered from the
respondent, but no further payments shall be released or
paid to the respondent.
c)
This appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
d)
No costs.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal disposed of.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. v. GURBARAN SINGH
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]