PATNA HIGH COURT
S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
Tapan Kumar Chatterjee - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Bihar & Ors. - Respondents
C.W.J.C. No. 4199 of 1997
Decided on : 27.1.1998
RETIREMENT BENEFITS - FORFEITURE OF PAST SERVICE - RESIGNATION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - BIHAR PENSION RULES, 1950 - RULE 101(A) AND (B) - UNIVERSITY STATUTE RELATING TO GENERAL CONDITION OF SERVICE - ARTICLE 12(1) AND UNIVERSITY STATUTE RELATING TO RETIREMENT BENEFITS - ARTICLE 14(1) AND (VII) - DISTINCTION BETWEEN RESIGNATION SIMPLICITER AND RESIGNATION DUE TO MISCONDUCT OR OTHER REASONS - NO FORFEITURE OF PAST SERVICE IN CASE OF RESIGNATION SIMPLICITER - RETIREMENT BENEFITS INCLUDING GRATUITY AND LEAVE ENCASHMENT CANNOT BE DENIED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Reader at Patna University, resigned from his post in 1994. He claimed that he was entitled to salary arrears, gratuity, and leave encashment, but the University refused to pay him, citing a circular requiring teachers to submit monthly progress reports and salary bills for the release of salary. The University also relied on Article 12(1) of the Statute relating to General Condition of Service, which provides for forfeiture of past service in cases of resignation, dismissal, or removal from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the provision of Article 12(1) of the Statute relating to General Condition of Service, which is equivalent to Rule 101(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, entails forfeiture of past service only in cases where resignation is given for misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency not due to age, or failure to pass a prescribed examination. The court further held that the provision is not applicable in the case of resignation simpliciter, which is a resignation without any stigma or misconduct.
Issues: 1. Whether resignation from service entails forfeiture of past service amounting to forfeiture of retirement benefits? 2. Whether the University is liable to pay the petitioner salary arrears, gratuity, and leave encashment?
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Article 12(1) of the Statute relating to General Condition of Service and Article 14(1) and (vii) of the Statute relating to Retirement Benefits. It held that the specific provision under Article 14, which deals with retirement benefits, applies in this case and not the general provision under Article 12. Article 14 stipulates forfeiture of past service only in cases of dismissal or removal from service, not in cases of resignation simpliciter. The court also distinguished between resignation simpliciter and resignation due to misconduct or other reasons, holding that the latter entails forfeiture of past service while the former does not.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the University to determine the salary and retirement benefits to which the petitioner is entitled under the law for the periods in question. The University was also directed to release and pay the admitted gratuity and leave encashment amount in favor of the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment.
S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J. - The petitioner, who resigned from the post of Reader, Patna University has prayed for direction on the respondents to pay him salary for the period May, 1990; other arrears prior to 1992; for the period from January, 1993 to June, 1994; gratuity and leave encashment.
2. One of the question to be determined in this case is whether resignation from service entails forfeiture of past service amounting to forfeiture of retirement benefits or not?
3. Admittedly the petitioner was in the services under the respondent-Patna University functioning as Reader, Department of Geology in the Science College, Patna. He resigned from service, which was accepted by the Patna University with effect from 1 st July, 1994.
4. According to the petitioner, after his resignation, the salary for the period from January, 1992 to December, 1992, which was due to him, was paid, but remaining salary for the period aforesaid have not yet been paid. The respondent-Patna University has also not released the gratuity and leave encashment amount till date, in his favour.
5. According to the counsel for the Patna University, the teachers are required to submit a monthly progress report of classes taken/subjects taught, duly countersigned by the Principle of the College or Head of the department, along with salary bill for the purpose of releasing salary of every month as laid down vide circular issued by the Patna University contained in letter no. G/7497 dated 7th October, 1991. Only on receipt of such monthly progress report and salary bill, the salary can be released. The petitioner earlier challenged the aforesaid circular dated 7th October, 1991 with prayer for payment of salary. The said case was disposed of on 13.5.1993, when this Court did not choose to set aside the circular in question and observed that the teaching staff should feel inclined to comply with aforesaid requirement to prevent any malpractice. If there was any difficulty in complying with such requirement, the petitioner is entitled to make representation before the authority for exemption and the appropriate authority should consider the same and make any modification, if it thinks proper.
6. So far as retirement benefit of gratuity and leave encashment is concerned, the counsel for the University relied on Article 12 (1) of 'General Condition of Service under 'Chapter I' of the Statute and submitted that the petitioner having resigned from service his past service forfeited and so he is not entitled for such benefit.
7. Before deciding the first question relating to arrears of salary and the effect of circular dated 7.10.91, I would like to discuss the second question relating to forfeiture of past service on resignation.
The employees of the University are guided by two statutes, one relating to 'General Condition of Service' and the other relating to 'retirement benefits'. While relevant provision stipulating forfeiture of past service has been laid down under Article 12(1) of Statute relating to 'General Condition of Service', under the heading 'Resignation and Dismissal', such provision relating to forfeiture of past service has been so laid down under Article 14 of the Statute relating to 'Retirement Benefits'. It is, therefore, necessary to take into note the aforesaid provision, as set out hereunder :
Article 12(1) of Statute relating to 'General Condition of Service'.
"12 (1) - Resignation from service, or dismissal or removal from it for misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency, not due to age or failure to pass a prescribed examination entails forfeiture of past service."
Article 14 (1) and (vii) of Statute relating to 'Retirement Benefits'.
"14(1) - "Qualifying service" means service rendered as a member of the staff of the University in a substantive capacity including period spent on probation. All services rendered in the University on a full time basis, on a temporary or officiating capacity followed without interruption by substantive appointment i
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.