State Of Hry. v. Panna Lal

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH STATE OF HARYANA ..Appellant

Versus

PANNA LAL ..Respondent

Reserved on: 23.03.2026

Pronounced on : 29.04.2026 Uploaded on : 04.05.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced?

YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:

Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for respondent.

* * * * * SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1.

The present regular second appeal is preferred against judgment and decree dated 14.12.2005 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul and judgment and decree dated 30.03.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, whereby, civil suit filed by the respondent was decreed in his favour and appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, respectively.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 2.

Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings in the civil suit are that respondent was enrolled in P.A.P. (Punjab Police) on 30.11.1956 and discharged from service on completion of his terms and engagement on

-201.09.1969. He rendered service for a period of 12 years 9 months. He filed civil suit for retiral benefits in the year 2002. The civil suit filed by him was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 14.12.2005 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul. Thereafter, the appellant filed appeal against the same, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul. Hence the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:- 3.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that both the Courts failed to appreciate the very fact that respondent was discharged from the service in the year 1969 and he filed civil suit in the year 2002 i.e. after a lapse of 33 years still the civil suit filed by him was decreed in his favour and appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. 4.

He further contends that respondent resigned from service and still by ignoring Punjab Civil Services Rules, pensionary benefits have been granted to the respondent. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed.

5.

Per contra learned counsel for respondent contends that both the Courts have rightly decreed the civil suit filed by the respondent and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. He, therefore, prays that present appeal be dismissed.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the whole record of the case with their able assistance. 7.

A perusal of the record shows that admittedly respondent resigned from service after putting 12 years and 9 months of service. He was

-3enrolled in Punjab Police on 30.11.1956 and resigned from service on 01.09.1969 due to domestic reasons.

8.

A perusal of the record further shows that there is no dispute regarding the fact that respondent resigned from service after putting 12 years and 9 months of service. Both the Courts without appreciating the relevant Rules as provided under Punjab Civil Services Rules have decreed the civil suit filed by the respondent and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.

9.

Before admitting the present regular second appeal, Coordinate Bench of this Court framed the following substantial questions of law and operation of impugned judgment was stayed vide order dated 10.04.2008, which is reproduced as under:- "Considering the argument addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:- "1. Whether the plaintiff-respondent can be granted the pensionary benefits when he himself resigned from the service and as per Rule 4.19A & 6.16, resignation by the public servant entails forfeiture of past service and no pension is payable in these circumstances.

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff-respondent is maintainable after a gap of 33 years."

The questions themselves depict the facts. of law framed above Admitted.

Execution of the decree shall remain stayed." 10.

This Court in RSA-2389-2009, titled as State of Haryana and others Vs. Kashmir Lal Khurana, decided on 29.04.2026 by relying upon RSA-13-2009, titled as State of Haryana and others Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha

-4Seth, decided on 18.09.2009 and judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Dass Relhan Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2009

(14) SCC 506, has held as under:- "7. Admittedly respondent joined as Medical Officer HCMS-II on ad hoc basis on 11.01.1977 and later on, on recommendation of Haryana Public Civil Services Commission, his services were regularized as Medical Officer and he joined as such on 09.03.1983. He resigned from service on 31.12.1990 after giving one month's prior notice. His resignation was accepted vide letter dated 13.04.1991. Therefore, he was having approximately 14 years of service. After resignation, he filed civil suit in the year 2006 for retiral benefits. Before admitting the present regular second appeal, a Coordinate Bench of this Court framed the following substantial questions of law and operation of impugned judgment was stayed vide order dated 03.07.2009, which is reproduced as under:- "Admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether the respondent can be granted retiral benefits when in view of rule 4.19(a), the resignation from public service entails forfeiture of past service and no pension can be granted in these circumstances?

ii) Whether the respondent can be granted retiral benefits when the case of the appellant does not cover under rule 6.16 vol.II CSR?

iii) Whether the suit of the respondent is time barred?

-5Meanwhile, operation of the impugned judgment and decree shall remain stayed."

8. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce relevant provisions of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II:- "Rule 3.17A(d) "3.17A(d). Resignation from the public service or dismissal or removal from it for misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency, not due to age, or failure to pass a prescribed examination will entail forfeiture of past service in terms of Rule 4.19(1) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume II."

Rule 4.19(a) "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, 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

-6other 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."

-7Rule 5.32 "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."

Rule 6.16(2) "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.

-81/2/1/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..."

9. A bare reading of Rule 3.17A(d) as reproduced above shows that resignation from public service would entail forfeiture of past service in terms of Rule 4.19(1) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. Therefore, Government servant, who resigns from service will forfeit his past service. In other words, the entire service rendered by an employee, who has sweared his relationship with his employer by virtue of his resignation stands completely forfeited. Therefore, he/she cannot claim pensionary benefits.

10. Rule 4.16(a) as referred to above reads that resignation, dismissal or removal from service would entail forfeiture of past service and no pension shall be granted.

11. Rule 6.16(2) as referred to above reads that Government employee retiring after completing qualifying service of not less than 33 years or more, meaning thereby it is applicable to the employee, who retires from service and is not applicable to the employees, who resigns from service.

-912. Now coming to Rule 5.32(a), which specifically states that the person on his resignation being accepted, is entitled for 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.

13. In the present case, respondent completed about 1314 years of service, which is not even qualifying service for entitlement of pension.

14. Learned First Appellate Court has totally misread the Rules applicable in the case of respondent and has wrongly held respondent entitled to pension on his resignation.

15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Dass Relhan Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2009 (14) SCC 506, has held that Rule clearly provides that a Government employee is entitled to retiring pension on his resignation being accepted if he completes qualifying service of not less than 30 years.

16. The relevant paras of Ghanshyam Dass Relhan's case (supra) are reproduced as under:- "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

-10expression 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 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.

18. As far as Rule 6.16(2) is concerned, in our view, the same cannot be divided into two

-11separate 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.

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

-12the 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."

17. In RSA-13-2009, the following question of law was referred to Full Bench of this Court:- "Whether a government employee on resignation forfeits his past service for purposes of pensionary benefits?"

18. This Court in RSA-13-2009, titled as State of Haryana and others Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha Seth, by relying upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Dass Relhan's case (supra), has held as under:- "We also consider it just and appropriate to deal, in the first (We instance, with Rule 6.16(2) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II, Part 1 which is repeatedly the basis of a claim for pensionary benefits, at the hands of government employees, who having resigned from service on completion of qualifying service in excess of 10 years. Rule 6.16(2) aforementioned is being extracted hereunder:- "6.16(2). In the case of a Government employee retiring on or after the 1st April, 1979, in

-13accordance 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 6.19C of these Rules subject to a maximum of Rs.3,000/- 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 proportion of the maximum admissible pension as such the qualifying service of thirty-three years, subject to a minimum of Rs.375/- per mensem."

Based on the aforesaid Rule, employees who have completed 10 years or more qualifying service, prior to severing their ties with their

-14employer, by resigning from service, claim pensionary benefits.

In our considered view, the benefit of Rule 6.16(2) certainly cannot be available to an individual who had severed his relationship with his/her employer by way of resignation. The aforesaid Rule is applicable only to an individual who has retired from service. The benefit of Rule 6.16(2) aforementioned can, therefore, be availed of only by a person who retires on superannuation or invalid and compassionate grounds.

It is also necessary for us to make a reference to Rule 3.17A (d) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II, Part I, which has been noticed in the reference order. The instant Rule has been the basis of denial of pensionary benefits to a government employee, who had resigned from service. The same is being extracted hereunder:

"3.17A (d). Resignation from the public service or dismissal or removal from it for misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency, not due to age, or failure to pass a prescribed examination will entail forfeiture of past service

-15in terms of Rule 4.19(1) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume 11."

A perusal of the aforesaid Rule reveals, that a government servant, who resigns from service will forfeit his past service. In other words, the entire service rendered by an employee who has severed his relationship with his employer by virtue of his resignation, stands completely forfeited, and as such, cannot be made the basis of claiming pensionary benefits.

The aforesaid stance of the government has to be resolved, in view of the conclusion expressed by us hereinabove, on the basis of Rule 5.32A(a) (extracted above). In our considered view, the aforesaid Rule is not an absolute Rule, inasmuch as, Rule 5.32A (a), extracted hereinabove, is an exception to the aforesaid Rule.

As such, a person who has qualifying service of a minimum of 30 years prior to tendering his resignation, will still be entitled to retiral benefits. The aforesaid retiral benefits at the discretion of the State government, can extend to an individual, who has 25 or more years of qualifying service. Rule 3.17A extracted above will, therefore, result in forfeiture of service (in a claim for pension) where the

-16qualifying service rendered by a government employee is less than 25/30 years (as the case may be) as per Rule 5.32A (extracted above).

The reference extracted at the inception of this order is, accordingly, answered in the manner expressed above."

Decision 11.

In the present case also respondent did not fulfill minimum qualifying service of 30 years for grant of pensionary benefits and resigned after approximately 12 years and 9 months of service. Therefore, as discussed above, he would not be entitled to pensionary benefits. The question of law framed in the present case is therefore answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.

12.

Consequently, judgment and decree dated 14.12.2005 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul and judgment and decree dated 30.03.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul are hereby set aside.

13.

Accordingly, the present regular second appeal is allowed. 14.

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

15.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of. 29.04.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub/Saahil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No