JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus and Certiorari, seeking quashing of the discharge order dated 30.08.2018 (Annexure P-7) and the consequential order dated 23.01.2019 (Annexure P-8), with a further direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner all retirement benefits, including pension, gratuity, and provident fund with interest, treating his exit from service as a case of “Voluntary Retirement” after completion of 25 years of service.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a work-charge employee and his services were regularized as a Peon (Class-IV employee) w.e.f. 01.04.1993. The petitioner claims to have rendered total regular service of 25 years and 04 months from 01.04.1993 to 30.08.2018.

2.1 Vide application dated 11.06.2018 (Annexure P-6), the petitioner submitted a letter to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambala. The relevant extract of the said application reads as under:

“Sir, It is requested that I, Sushil Kumar... working as permanent Peon... Due to my personal problem I am unable to perform my duty. Therefore, I am giving resign from my duty. You are requested that my resignation may be accepted... I shall be always thankful to you.”

2.2 Pursuant to this application, the respondent-authorities accepted the same and issued a discharge letter dated 30.08.2018 (Annexure P-7), relieving the petitioner from service. Subsequently, when the petitioner claimed pensionary benefits, the respondents denied the same, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.

CONTENTIONS

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner joined as a regular Peon w.e.f. 01.04.1993 and has rendered more than 25 years and 04 months of qualifying service. He refers to Annexure P- 6, the application dated 11.06.2018, and argues that although the petitioner is an illiterate Class-IV employee, his application was essentially for voluntary retirement, as he specifically requested for release of “whatever service benefits” are payable to him. Learned counsel further submits that the Government of Haryana had circulated a Voluntary Retirement Scheme vide No. 32/06/2018-4GS1, under which the petitioner, having completed 25 years of service, was fully entitled to claim pensionary benefits. Further the learned Counsel submits that, the respondents, as a model employer, ought to have treated the petitioner’s application as a case of voluntary retirement rather than resignation, more so when the petitioner had no intention to forfeit his past service. He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asger Ibrahim Amin v. LIC, (2016) 13 SCC 797, to contend that the Court must look beyond the nomenclature of the letter and examine the substance, and that a beneficial scheme like pension cannot be denied on hyper-technical grounds.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner’s own application dated 11.06.2018 (Annexure P-6) is unequivocally a letter of resignation, wherein the petitioner has clearly stated, “I am giving resign from my duty” and has requested acceptance of his “resignation.” There is no mention of any Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the said letter, nor has the petitioner ever applied for voluntary retirement under the Haryana Government’s scheme. Learned counsel further submits that under Rule 21(b) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, (Rules of 2016) resignation from public service entails automatic forfeiture of past service for the purposes of pension, and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to any pensionary benefits. He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reserve Bank of India v. Cecil Dennis Solomon, (2004) 9 SCC 461, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has drawn a clear distinction between ‘resignation’ and ‘voluntary retirement’, ho