2009 Supreme(SC) 1244

2009(5) Supreme 615
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Ghanshyam Dass Relhan — Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana & Ors. — Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 98 of 2007
Decided on : 16-07-2009

Headnote:Service Law – Punjab Civil Services Rules – Rule 4.19, 6.16(2) and Note 1 of Rule No.5.32(b) – Petitioner a clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar was transferred to the office of 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 Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra – 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 – Petitioner retired from the service of the Bank on superannuation on 30.9.1997 – Denial of pension to petitioner – Challenge thereagainst – As far as Rule 6.16(2) is concerned, same cannot be divided into two separate compartments – 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 his case was instead governed by Rule 5.32-A, which deals with resignation – The said Rule clearly provided that a Government employee was 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 had 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 held not entitled to the benefit of pension under Rule 6.16(2) – No reason to interfere with the judgment of High Court – Special Leave Petition dismissed. (Paras 15 to 20)

       Facts of the Case :

        Petitioner a clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar was transferred to the office of Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, in a permanent vacancy and was confirmed in the said post therein with effect from 1.1.1970 herein in the instant Petitioner a clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar was transferred to the office of 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 Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra-. 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-Petitioner retired from the service of the Bank on superannuation on 30.9.1997 Since Petitioner was denied pension, he challenged the same.

       Findings of the Court :

        Held as far as Rule 6.16(2) is concerned, same cannot be divided into two separate compartments. 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. Not having superannuated from government service, petitioner could not come within the said category and his case was instead governed by Rule 5.32-A, which deals with resignation. The said Rule clearly provided that a Government employee was 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 had 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 held not entitled to the benefit of pension under Rule 6.16(2). No reason to interfere with the judgment of High Court. Special Leave Petition was dismissed.