IMPORTANT POINT
In case of resignation from service or a post, unless matter was covered under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 26 of CCS Rules, it would entail forfeiture of past service.

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit. J.

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.

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 Singh, (2005) 8 SCC 325 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 Singh a pari materia provision viz. Rule 26 of CCS Rules came up for consideration. Para 5 of the decision was as under:-

"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-r