1. Dispute over counting previous service in state-controlled entities for pension calculation after resignation to join another government post via public service commission. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 937
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.
State of Rajasthan and Others – Petitioners
Versus
O.P. Gupta – Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16734 of 2022, Diary No. 27824 of 2020
Decided On : 19-09-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Writ Jurisdiction – Laws of limitation do not apply to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
(2) Pension is a life long benefit – Denial of pension is a continuing wrong.
(1) Writ Jurisdiction – Laws of limitation do not apply to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
(2) Pension is a life long benefit – Denial of pension is a continuing wrong.
Subject
Employment Law - Pension and Retirement Benefits
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.136, Art.14, Art.16, Art.15
RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES PENSION RULES: R.25(2), R.25
RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES PENSION RULES: R.25(2), R.25
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction – Laws of limitation do not apply to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India – Relief under Article 226 of Constitution of India being discretionary, Courts might in their discretion refuse to entertain Writ Petition, where there is gross delay on part of Writ Petitioner, particularly, where relief sought would, if granted, unsettle things which are already settled. (Para 26)
(B) Service Law – Pension – Pension is a life long benefit – Denial of pension is a continuing wrong – When financial rules framed by Government such as Pension Rules are capable of more interpretations than one, Courts should lean towards that interpretation which goes in favour of employee – Resignation from service may entail forfeiture of past service – However, sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 of Rules carves out an exception – Resignation with proper permission to take up another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under Government shall not entail forfeiture of past service. [Rule 25 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996] (Paras 23, 27 and 28)
Facts of the case:
Present Special Leave Petition has been filed challenging final judgment and order dated 28th November 2019, in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 443 of 2018 passed by High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, whereby the High Court dismissed Writ Appeal filed by the Petitioners and upheld the judgment of Single Bench dated 5th May 2017 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5879 of 2009, whereby Single Judge had allowed Writ Petition filed by Respondent.
Findings of Court:
High Court has rendered a just decision based on a purposive interpretation of Rule 25(2) of Rules applied to admitted facts on record. The interpretation given by the High Court to Rule 25(2) of the Rules is a plausible interpretation.
Result : Special Leave Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. B.S. Rajesh Agrajit, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Rana, Adv. Ms. Priya Nagar, Adv. Mr. Vikalp Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arpit Prakash, Adv. Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR Mr. Avnish Dave, Adv. Ms. Vanya Gupta, Adv. Mr. Parmod Kumar Vishnoi, Adv. Mr. Akshat Sharma, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. B.S. Rajesh Agrajit, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Rana, Adv. Ms. Priya Nagar, Adv. Mr. Vikalp Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arpit Prakash, Adv. Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR Mr. Avnish Dave, Adv. Ms. Vanya Gupta, Adv. Mr. Parmod Kumar Vishnoi, Adv. Mr. Akshat Sharma, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether resignation from a state corporation to join a government department entails forfeiture of past service or falls under an exception requiring prior permission. (Para 17 , 20 , 21 )
3. Presumption of prior permission exists when appointment is made through a public service commission; pension is a lifelong benefit and its denial is a continuing wrong. (Para 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 31 )
4. Resignation to take up another government appointment with proper permission does not entail forfeiture of past service under Rule 25(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. (Para 14 , 15 , 23 )
5. Special Leave Petition dismissed, upholding the High Court's direction to count previous service for pensionary benefits. (Para 32 , 33 )
6. Does resignation from service always result in the forfeiture of past service for pension purposes?
Generally, resignation entails forfeiture of past service. However, under Rule 25(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, past service is not forfeited if the resignation was submitted with proper permission to take up another temporary or permanent appointment under the Government where service qualifies. (Para 15 , 23 )
7. How is the requirement of prior permission for resignation handled when an employee is appointed to a government post via a Public Service Commission?
When an appointment is made through the Public Service Commission to a government post, it is presumed that prior permission was obtained and past service was disclosed, unless the State establishes the contrary. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 )
8. Does a significant delay in filing a writ petition bar a retired employee from claiming pensionary benefits?
While relief under Article 226 is discretionary, pension is a lifelong benefit and its denial is considered a continuing wrong. Courts may condone delays, especially considering the financial constraints of retired employees. (Para 26 , 27 )
9. How should courts interpret government financial rules, such as Pension Rules, when multiple interpretations are possible?
When financial rules framed by the Government are capable of more than one interpretation, the courts should lean towards the interpretation that favors the employee. (Para 28 )
JUDGMENT :
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
1. Delay Condoned.
2. This Special Leave Petition has been filed challenging the final judgment and order dated 28th November 2019, in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 443 of 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, whereby the High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by the Petitioners and upheld the judgment of the Single Bench dated 5th May 2017 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5879 of 2009, whereby the Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent.
3. The Respondent was initially appointed as an Assistant Charge Man in the Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board, Department of Agriculture, Government of Rajasthan w.e.f. 13th January 1967.
4. The Engineering Board was subsequently merged with the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation. Accordingly, the services of the Respondent were transferred to the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation vide transfer order dated 8th July 1970, on the same pay scale. He worked with Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation continuously till 12th April 1977.
5. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 16th June 1976 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “RPSC”) the Respondent applied for the post of Assistant Director (Agro-Industries). The Respondent was selected for the post of Assistant Director (Agro-Industries), Department of Industries, State of Rajasthan.
6. The Respondent was appointed as Assistant Director (Agro-Industries), Department of Industries, State of Rajasthan by an order dated 7th April 1977. According to the Respondent, he joined service in the Department of Industries on 16th April 1977.
7. The Respondent while serving in the Department of Industries, attained the age of superannuation and retired on 30th April 2003 from the post of Additional Director of Industries, Headquarter, Jaipur. However, while counting the length of service of the Respondent for the purpose of calculating pension and other retiral benefits, the Petitioners did not count the tenure from 13th January 1967 to 12th April 1977 (i.e. the period for which the Respondent worked for the Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board and the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation).
8. The Respondent submitted representations to the Department of Industries requesting that his service tenure from 13th January 1967 to 12th April 1977 be counted for the purposes of his pension and retiral benefits. However, the request for counting the service tenure from 13th January 1967 to 12th April 1977, was not granted.
9. Aggrieved, the Respondent filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5879 of 2009 before the Single Judge, Rajasthan High Court on or about 20th March 2009. The moot point for consideration before the Single Judge was, whether service rendered by the Respondent/Writ Petitioner prior to resignation from the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation, should be counted for the purpose of pension.
10. By a Judgment and Order dated 5th May 2017, the Single Bench allowed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5879 of 2009 and held that the service rendered by the Respondent with the Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board and the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation, was liable to be counted, while computing pension/other pensionary benefits of the Respondent.
11. The Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the Petitioners to count the earlier period of service rendered by the Respondent with the Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board and the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation to compute the total pensionable service of the Respondent and release his pension and retiral benefits including arrears of pension with interest @ 9% p.a. within a period of three months from the date of the submission of the certified copy of the order. According to the Respondent, a copy of the judgment and order dated 5th May 2017 was submitted to the Petitioners on 15th May 2017 by registered post. However, the Pet
