IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 98 of 2007

Ghanshyam Dass Relhan …Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR,J.

1. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the  

office  of  the  Deputy  Commissioner,  Hisar  on  

7.11.1958  on  being  selected  by  the  Punjab  

Subordinate  Services  Selection  Board,  Chandigarh.  

On 11.1.1970 he was transferred to the office of  

the  Deputy  Commissioner,  Karnal,  in  a  permanent  

vacancy and was confirmed in the said post therein  

with  effect  from  1.1.1970.  He  was  promoted  as  

Stenographer and was posted in the office of the  

Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra.

2. On 11.10.1976 some posts of Senior Accountants  

were  advertised  by  the  Kurukshetra  Central  Bank  

Limited  and  upon  his  application  through  proper  

channel he was selected for one of the said posts.  

After  taking  permission  of  the  Government  of  

Haryana the petitioner resigned from the post of  

Stenographer and relinquished charge on 10.1.1977  

when he joined the said Bank as Senior Accountant.  

The petitioner retired from the service of the Bank  

on  superannuation  on  30.9.1997  and  was  paid  

Contributory  Provident  Fund,  Gratuity  and  Leave  

Encashment,  but  not  pension.  The  petitioner  

thereupon  made  a  representation  to  the  Chief  

Secretary,  Government  of  Haryana,  for  grant  of  

pension as he had rendered 18 years 2 months and 3  

days of service between 7.11.1958 to 10.1.1977 in  

the office of Deputy Commissioner, Hisar, Karnal  

and  Kurukshetra.   On  being  asked  to  submit  an  

application for pension in the prescribed proforma  

the petitioner submitted the same on 14.4.2003 to  

2

the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra. On 17.5.2005,  

the  petitioner  was  informed  by  the  Deputy  

Commissioner,  Kurukshetra,  that  he  could  not  be  

given pension in view of Rule 4.19 and Note 1 of  

Rule No.5.32(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules.  

The said decision was challenged by the petitioner  

in  Civil  Writ  Petition  No.8666  of  2005  in  the  

Punjab and Haryana High Court, which dismissed the  

Writ  Petition  on  7.8.2006  upon  holding  that  the  

petitioner was not entitled to pension under Rule  

5.2(a) of the aforesaid Rules because he had not  

rendered qualifying service of at least 30 years.  

The  said  decision  of  the  High  Court  has  been  

challenged in this Special Leave Petition.

3. Appearing  in  support  of  the  Special  Leave  

Petition, Mr. S.K.Dholakia, learned senior counsel,  

submitted that since payment of pension is intended  

to be a social security after retirement, the rules  

relevant thereof should be interpreted liberally in  

favour of grant of such pension, which had not been  

3

done by the High Court while passing the impugned  

order. Mr. Dholakia submitted that Rule 4.19(a)  

could  not  be  applied  to  the  petitioner’s  case,  

inasmuch  as,  the  said  Rules  contemplated  

resignation from public service on account of anti-

national  activities  such  as  sabotage,  espionage  

etc.  or  for  misconduct,  insolvency,  inefficiency  

not due to age or failure to pass a prescribed  

examination.  

4. Mr.  Dholakia  urged  that  none  of  the  said  

contingencies  which  entails  forfeiture  of  past  

service and disqualification for pension, apply to  

the petitioner’s case. On the other hand, according  

to Mr. Dholakia, the authorities, as well as the  

High Court, should have applied the provisions of  

Rule 4.19(b) to the petitioner’s case. For the sake  

of reference Rules 4.19(a) and (b) are extracted  

hereinbelow:

“4.19(a) Resignation from public service,  dismissal or removal from it, either under  proviso  (c)  to  Article  311(2)  of  the  

4

Constitution  for  over  anti-national  activities  such  as  sabotage,  espionage  etc.  or  for  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:

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 by  the Advisors constituted under the Haryana  Civil  Services  (Safeguarding  of  National  Security) Rules, 1971.

(b) Resignation of an appointment to take  up,  with  proper  permission,  another  appointment,  whether  permanent  or  temporary, service in which counts in full  or in part, is not a resignation of public  service.

In  cases  where  an  interruption  in  service  is  inevitable  due  to  the  two  appointments being at different stations,  such  interruptions,  not  exceeding  the  joining time permissible under the rules  on transfer, shall be covered by grant of  leave of any kind due to the Government  employee  on  the  date  of  relief  or  by  formal condonation under Rule 4.23 to the  extent to which the period is not covered  by leave due to the Government employee.”

5

5. In  addition  to  the  above  Mr.  Dholakia  also  

referred to Rule 6.16(2) of the aforesaid Rules,  

which reads as follows:

“6.16(2)  In  the  case  of  a  Government  employee retiring on or after the 1st April  1979, in accordance with the provisions of  these  rules  after  completing  qualifying  service  of  not  less  than  thirty-three  years  or  more,  the  amount  of  superannuation,  retiring,  invalid  and  compassionate  pensions  shall  be  50%   of  average emoluments as defined in Rule 6.19  –C of these rules subject to a maximum of  (Rs.3000/-)(Substituted  vide  No.1/2/1/CSR  Vol.II/91  –Sr.AO(FD)  dated  31.1.92)  per  mensem.  However,  in  the  case  of  a  Government  employee  who  at  the  time  of  retirement has rendered qualifying service  of ten years or more but less than thirty  three years, the amount of pension shall  be such portion of the maximum admissible  pension as such the qualifying service of  thirty three years, subject to a maximum  of  (Rs.375/-)  (Substituted  vide  No.1/2/1/CSR.Vol.II/91-Sr.A.O.(FD)  Dated  31.1.92) per mensem…”

6. Mr. Dholakia submitted that the first part of  

Rule  6.16(2)  would  not  apply  to  the  petitioner  

since  he  had  resigned  from  the  service  of  the  

Government of Haryana on 11.10. 1976, i.e. prior to  

the date mentioned in the first part of said Rule.  

6

However, according to Mr. Dholakia, the second part  

of the Rule would apply since it indicates that in  

the case of a Government employee, who at the time  

of retirement has rendered qualifying service of 10  

years or more, but less than 33 years, he would be  

entitled to pension which would be subject to such  

portion of the maximum pension on completion of the  

qualifying service of 33 years subject to a maximum  

of Rs.375/-. Mr. Dholakia urged that the petitioner  

was at least entitled to the benefit of the second  

portion of Rule 6.16(2) since he had completed more  

than 18 years of service in the employment of the  

Government of Haryana.

7. In  support  of  his  submissions  Mr.  Dholakia  

referred  to  and  relied  upon  a  Division  Bench  

decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of  

Dr.  Sajal  Kanti  Chakraborty  vs.  State  of  West  

Bengal  and  ors.  [2004(5)  SLR  634]  wherein  Rule  

33(1) and (2) of the West Bengal Services (Death-

cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971, which are pari  

7

materia  to  Rule  4.19(a)  and  (b),  fell  for  

consideration and by applying Rule 33(2), which is  

akin to Rule 4.19(b), the Calcutta High Court held  

that the resignation of the employee would not be  

treated  as  resignation  from  public  service  and  

would entitled him to pension in terms of Rule 59  

of the said Rules.

8. Reference was also made to the decision of this  

Court in Praduman Kumar Jain vs. Union of India  

[(1994 Supp (2) SCC 548] which involved the right  

to pension claimed by the appellant after having  

completed  more  than  10  years  service  without  

interruption. This Court held that despite the fact  

that  the  appellant  had  not  been  confirmed  in  

service,  but  having  resigned  to  join  as  Central  

Government  Undertaking,  he  must  be  held  to  have  

fulfilled  the  requirement  of  substantive  

appointment and the requisite length of qualifying  

service.  

8

9. Mr.  Dholakia  urged  that  since  Rule  4.19(b)  

provides that resignation of appointment to take  

up,  with  proper  permission  another  appointment,  

whether permanent or temporary, service in which  

counts in full or in part, is not a resignation of  

public service, the petitioner should also be given  

the benefit thereof for the purpose of computing  

qualifying  service  at  the  time  of  his  

superannuation from the service of the Bank.

10.   On the other hand, Mr. P.S.Patwalia, learned  

senior counsel appearing for the respondents, began  

where  Mr.  Dholakia  ended  and  urged  that  the  

expression used in Rule 4.19(b) namely “service in  

which counts in full or in part” can only mean that  

a employee who after resignation claims the benefit  

of Rule 4.19(b) has to subsequently join a service  

which is pensionable.  He also urged that Rule 6.16  

(2) of the Rules, on which reliance has been placed  

by Mr. Dholakia, would not apply in the facts of  

9

this case in view of Rule 5.32-A which deals with  

grant of retiring pension.

11. For  the  sake  of  reference  the  said  Rule  is  

extracted hereinbelow:

“5.32-A.   The  rule  for  the  grant  of  retiring pensions is as follows:

a) A Government employee is entitled, on  his  resignation  being  accepted,  to  a  retiring  pension  after  completing  qualifying  service  of  not  less  than  30  years,  but  a  competent  authority  may  permit  the  pension  to  be  granted  in  Special cases where the qualifying service  is not less than 25 years.

b) A retiring pension is also granted to  a Government employee who is required  by  Government  to  retire  after  completing 25 years qualifying service  or more and who has not attained the  age of 55 years.”

12. Mr. Patwalia submitted that the aforesaid Rule  

takes into account the resignation of a Government  

employee  and  his  right  to  pension  after  such  

resignation is accepted and the same contemplates a  

qualifying service of not less than 30 years in  

order to be eligible to a retiring pension. Mr.  

10

Patwalia pointed out that as far as Rule 6.16(2) is  

concerned the same does not deal with resignation  

but only retirement and that too after 1.4.1979.  

He  also  urged  that  the  said  Rule  could  not  be  

divided into two compartments, as has been sought  

to be done by Mr. Dholakia. He urged that the said  

Rule  provides  for  pension  on  retirement  after  

completion of qualifying service. The latter part  

of  Rule  6.16(2)  flows  from  the  first  half  and  

contemplates a situation where an employee may not  

have completed 33 years but 10 years of service and  

had made such an employee who retired in the normal  

course entitled to the benefit of pro rata pension  

in relation to his length of service.

13.  To  bolster  his  submissions  Mr.  Patwalia  

referred to the decision of this Court in Union of  

India vs. Rakesh Kumar [(2001) 4 SCC 309] in which  

the BSF Rules which are similar to the Rules under  

consideration in this Special Leave Petition were  

considered. Analyzing the provisions of Rule 48(a)  

11

and  49  of  the  Central  Civil  Services  (Pension)  

Rules, 1972, along with the provisions of the BSF  

Rules 1969, the Court was of the view that in the  

event  the  Government  servant  retires  before  

completing  the  period  of  qualifying  service  for  

pension he would be entitled to gratuity which was  

to be calculated at a half month’s emolument for  

every completed six months of qualifying service.  

However, those Government servants, who completed  

the  qualifying  service  of  10  years,  would  be  

entitled to payment of pro-rata pension in relation  

to their length of service.  

14. Mr. Patwalia also referred to another decision  

of this Court in Reserve Bank of India vs. Cecil  

Dennis Solomon and another [(2004) 9 SCC 461] where  

the  benefit  of  voluntary  retirement,  which  was  

equated  with  resignation  by  the  High  Court,  was  

held to be erroneous since it did not fall within  

the definition of “retirement” contemplated under  

the RBI Regulations, 1948. He then referred to the  

12

decision of this Court in UCO Bank vs. Sanwar Mal  

[(2004) 4 SCC 412] where the difference between the  

words  ‘resignation’  and  ‘retirement’  was  noticed  

and  explained.  It  was  observed  that  the  two  

expressions  carry  different  meanings  in  common  

parlance.   It  was  held  that  an  employee  could  

resign at any time, but in the case of retirement  

he  could  retire  only  upon  attaining  the  age  of  

superannuation  or  in  the  case  of  voluntary  

retirement on completion of qualifying service. Mr.  

Patwalia submitted that the decision of the High  

Court had been rendered on the basis of the Rules  

relevant  to  the  petitioner’s  case  and  did  not  

warrant any interference.

15. Having  considered  the  submissions  made  on  

behalf of the respective parties and the provisions  

of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, we are unable  

to accept Mr. Dholakia’s submissions that in view  

of the provisions of Rule 4.19(b) read with the  

latter  portion  of  Rule  6.16(2)  of  the  aforesaid  

13

Rules, the petitioner will be eligible and entitled  

to pro rata pension having rendered more than 10  

years’  service  which  has  been  indicated  as  the  

qualifying  service  in  the  latter  portion  of  the  

said  Rule  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  pro-rata  

pension.

16.  In our view, Rule 4.19(a) has to be read and  

understood differently from what has been urged by  

Mr.  Dholakia.  The  expression  ‘resignation  from  

public service’ will have to be read disjunctively  

from ‘dismissal or removal from it’. The expression  

‘resignation  from  public  service’  will  not  be  

qualified by the subsequent references relating to  

anti-national activities. On the other hand, the  

expression ‘dismissal or removal from it’ will be  

qualified  by  the  said  expression  which  would  in  

both cases entail forfeiture of past service and  

disqualification so far as payment of pension is  

concerned.  In  other  words,  read  disjunctively,  

resignation simpliciter from public service would  

14

entail forfeiture of past service and no pension is  

to be granted in the aforesaid circumstances.

17. As far as Rule 4.19(b) is concerned it is quite  

clear  that  resignation  to  take  up  with  proper  

permission another appointment, would have to be in  

a  service,  which  would  count  towards  pension  in  

Government service.  It means that the subsequent  

appointment must also be in public service and in  

such a case the resignation would not amount to  

resignation of public service.  In such a case,  

continuity in public service would be accepted in  

computing the qualifying service of 30 years for  

grant of pension.  It is a provision similar to  

Rule 4.19(b) which was relied upon by the Division  

Bench of the Calcutta High Court in deciding the  

case of Dr. Sajal Kanti Chakraborty (supra), and  

distinguishes the said case from the facts of this  

case.  

15

18. As far as Rule 6.16(2) is concerned, in our  

view, the same cannot be divided into two separate  

compartments as has been suggested by Mr. Dholakia.  

The second part of the said Rule is a consequence  

of the first part, which deals with retirement upon  

superannuation  and  not  resignation,  as  in  the  

instant case. In order to be eligible for pension  

the  Government  employee  at  the  time  of  

superannuation  would  have  to  complete  qualifying  

service of not less than 33 years or more. However,  

an exception has been made in the second part of  

the said Rule which also allows the benefit of pro-  

rata pension to employees who had rendered 10 years  

service  or  more.  In  our  view,  not  having  

superannuated  from  government  service,  the  

petitioner cannot come within the said category and  

as  submitted  by  Mr.  Patwalia,  his  case  would  

instead  be  governed  by  Rule  5.32-A,  which  deals  

with resignation.

16

19.  The  said  Rule  clearly  provides  that  a  

Government employee is entitled on his resignation  

being accepted to a retiring pension subject to his  

completing qualifying service of not less than 30  

years which in special cases could be reduced to 25  

years. Since the petitioner has not completed the  

qualifying  service  of  30  years  and  since  the  

service rendered by him with the Bank would not be  

counted towards Government service, the petitioner  

is not entitled to the benefit of pension under  

Rule 6.16(2) and the High Court has rightly decided  

the issue.

20. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with  

the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  and  the  Special  

Leave  Petition  is,  therefore,  dismissed,  but  

without any order as to costs.

________________J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

________________J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

New Delhi Dated: 16.07.2009

17