1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of pension and pensionary benefits to him by the respondents though he had worked in aided schools in the State from 06.07.1953 to 25.03.1968. Inter alia, the petitioner has also challenged the constitutionality of Rule 29(a) Part III KSR.

2. The petitioner worked in two aided schools of Kannur and Wayanad Districts from 06.07.1953 to 25.03.1968. He has resigned from service due to family problems. Representations sent by the petitioner were rejected by the respondents vide Exts.P4, P6, P9, P11 and P13 on the ground that as per Rule 29(a) Part III KSR, a person who resigned from service will have to forfeit his past service. Though the petitioner had pointed out the fact that similarly situated persons were given pension and other benefits vide Exts.P7 and P8, the respondents have, in a highly discriminatory manner, rejected the prayer of the petitioner for grant of pension and other benefits. Therefore, the petitioner also challenges the constitutionality of Rule 29(a) Part III KSR, which disallows payment of pension for past service if a person resigns from service. The petitioner alleges that he worked in the remote district of Wayanad during a very difficult period and; he had a very good track record, which is vouchsafed by the Manager of the School, where he last worked. He is very much aggrieved of the denial of pension and pensionary benefits. Thus, he has come up before this Court.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State, they contended that the petitioner left the service on resignation and; therefore, he forfeited his past service as stipulated in Rule 29(a) part III Kerala Service Rules. They maintain the stand that Exts.P7 and P8 are not identical to the case of the petitioner. They also maintain the stand that Rule 29(a) Part III KSR is constitutionally valid, legal and just. Therefore, they prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader in the matter.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner was working in aided schools in Kannur and Wayanad Districts from 06.07.1953 to 25.03.1968. It is an admitted fact that he had resigned from service. The legal bar, pointed out by the respondent State in granting pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner, is Rule 29(a) Part III KSR, which reads as follows;

“29. Resignation and Dismissals.- (a) Resignation of the Public Service or dismissal or removal from it, entails forfeiture of past service.”

6. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid rule is unconstitutional, illegal and ultra-vires. The respondent has no case that any proceeding was initiated against the petitioner or was to be initiated at that stage, which was the reason for resignation by the petitioner. No misconduct or dereliction of duty, while he was on duty, was alleged against him. In such a case, whether it can be stated that the resignation in the case of the petitioner entails forfeiture of past service? Rule 29(b) makes it clear that resignation of an appointment to take up another appointment the service in which counts is not resignation from public service. It is not clear if a person, against whom no proceeding is pending or allegation is pending, submits resignation if he wants to take rest in his life or is suffering from ailment, whether resignation would amount to forfeiture of past service. If a case, where the resignation is not because of any departmental proceeding or any allegation, is equated with the case of those dismissed or removed from service, it will render two unequal as equal and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, to uphold Rule 29(a) Part III KSR as not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it is to be held that the resignation will entail forfeiture of past service only in those cases where a person submits resignation because of any allegation or proceeding