ORDER

1. The core question involved in the present case is that whether benefit of Rule 26 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976(hereinafter referred as Rules of 1976) can be extended to the petitioner who joined on the post of Naib Tehsildar on 31.03.1998 before grant of formal permission/sanction from his previous Department. Some of the facts are admitted in the present case which are as under:-<br/>

(i) Petitioner worked on the post of Assistant Teacher from 10.10.1977 to 26.11.1987 in the Education Department, District Datia.

(ii) Thereafter, petitioner appeared in the examination conducted by Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and from 27.11.1987 to

30.03.1988, he worked on the post of Regional Convener in the Department of Tribal Welfare District Satna. (iii) Thereafter, he was appointed as Naib Tehsildar w.e.f. 31.03.1988 and he worked in the Revenue Department on the post of Naib Tehsildar and thereafter he was promoted on the post of Deputy Commissioner and worked till his superannuation on 31.12.2013. (iv) The petitioner applied to the Department for taking into consideration his previous service for the purpose of computation of his pension and retiral dues. But the same was declined by communication dated 04.02.2014 on the ground that before joining on the post of Naib Tehsildar, prior permission was not extended to the petitioner by the previous Department, therefore, he cannot get the benefit of the Rule 26 of the Rules, 1976.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that before joining on the post of Naib Tehsildar, the petitioner duly intimated the same to the previous Department by letter dated 29.03.1988 and the same was forwarded to the Additional Commissioner of Tribal Welfare Department and in the anticipation of the permission/consent, petitioner had joined on the post of Naib Tehsildar as the last date for joining was 31.03.1988. Thereafter, earlier Department demanded resignation from the petitioner which was submitted by the petitioner and the same was accepted by the Department.

3. It is not the case that petitioner joined on the Post of Naib Tehsildar without any intimation to the Tribal Welfare Department. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgement dated 13.07.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prem Narayan Hindoliya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another (W.P. 27224/2019) where in the similar circumstances, Co-ordinate Bench, after considering the provisions of Rule 26 of the Rules of 1976 has extended the benefit of the past services of the petitioner therein for the purpose of calculation of retiral dues and pension. The relevant paragraphs of the order which relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner are as under:-

8 . From the reply which has been submitted by the State it is very much clear that till today no consideration of this aspect has been made by the respondents whether the period from 1985 is required to be counted for the purpose of retiral dues of the petitioner. No efforts appears to have been made by the respondent-department to get it verified nor any decision has been taken so far. In the aforesaid respect it is an admitted position that the petitioner was appointed in the Agriculture Department on a permanent post with effect from 13.5.1985 and had served the department till his joining with the respondent-department in the year 1990 upon clearing the M.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board (popularly known as Mini PSC) Examination with due permission from the Agriculture Department. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents as there is no rebuttal in the reply in this regard.

9. In the light of the proviso to Rule 26 it is very much clear that if the resignation has been made with prior permission then the past services rendered by the employee would not entail its forfeiture and the said period would be required to be considered for the purpose of r