S.MANIKUMAR, J.

Challenge in this appeal, is to an order, made in W.P(MD)No.9688 of 2015, dated 22.06.2015, by which, the Writ Court has declined to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.36267/O.Na. 3/2014-1, dated 07.05.2015, of the Director of Local Fund Audit Department, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein. The Writ Court has declined to grant any direction to the respondents, to sanction pensionary benefits to the appellant, in the post of Assistant Inspector and Deputy Inspector, in Local Fund Audit Department, for the period from 05.10.2001 to 21.01.2013, along with arrears of pension and other terminal benefits.

2. Facts leading to the writ appeal, are that the appellant resigned from service on 21.01.2013 due to family circumstances. It was accepted by the Director of Local Fund Audit Department, Chennai, 2nd respondent, vide order dated 03.04.2013. After resignation, the appellant has sought for terminal benefits and pension, by invoking Section 23(1) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, which reads as follows:-

''23.Forfeiture of service on resignation – (1) Resignation from a service or post entails forfeiture of past service;

Provided that 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.''

3. By considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as to when pension can be granted and as to how statute has to be interpreted, at paragraphs 3 and 4, the Writ Court declined to grant the relief sought for, which reads as follows:-

3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Braj Nandan Singh, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 325, has held as follows:

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 Forfeiture of service on resignation (1) Resignation from a service or post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the Appointing Authority, entails forfeiture of past service.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-rule (2) is in the nature of an exception. It provides that 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. Admittedly this is not the case in the present appeal. Rule 5 on which great emphasis was laid down by the learned counsel for the respondent deals with regulation of claims to pension or family pension. Qualifying service is dealt with in Chapter III. The conditions subject to which service qualifies are provided in Rule 14. Chapter V deals with classes of pensions and conditions governing their grant. The effect of Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) cannot be lost sight of while deciding the question of entitlement of pension. The High Court was not justified in its conclusion that the rule was being torn out of context. After the past service is forfeited the same has to be excluded from the period of qualifying service. The language of Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) is very clear and unambiguous. It is trite law that all the provisions of a statute have to be read together and no particular provision should be treated as superfluous. That being the position after the acceptance of resignation, in term