A government employee who resigns from service due to personal or domestic reasons without any pending disciplinary proceedings is entitled to proportionate pension under Rule 6.16(2), as the forfeiture provisions of Rule 4.19(a) apply only to resignations intended to avoid dismissal for misconduct or anti-national activities.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 02.07.2021 (Annexure P-7), vide which the request of the petitioner for grant of proportionate pension and other retiral benefits was declined, in view of Rule 4.19 (a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , he has preferred the instant writ petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. In nutshell, the petitioner was appointed as Steno Typist on 15.09.1999, by the District and Session Judge-respondent No.2, against a regular post in the corresponding pay scale. However, owing to certain compelling family circumstances, he had submitted resignation, along with one month’s salary, vide application dated 01.10.2012 (Annexure P-2), which was duly accepted by respondent No.2 on 03.10.2012 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, he moved the authorities seeking proportionate retiral benefits, including Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, vide application dated 01.08.2018 (Annexure P-4). However, having been considered at different levels, the same was rejected vide order under challenge, in terms of Rule 4.19(a) of Punjab Civil Services Rules , now read as Rule 21 of Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2016’). The abovesaid chronology of events has led the petitioner to the current stage.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in an endeavour to challenge the order (supra), submitted that the petitioner is entitled to proportionate pension, along with DCRG, in the light of Rule 6.16(2) and 6.16(A), of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , 2007 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2007’), as applicable to the State of Haryana. He further submitted that reliance placed upon Rule 4.19(a) by respondent No.2 to reject the claim of the petitioner is misplaced, as the same would apply only in a case where the resignation is submitted by a government servant, with a view to avoid an order of dismissal or removal from service. However, the petitioner maintained an unblemished record and clean antecedents throughout the period he remained in service, and no disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated or even contemplated against him.

4. Taking his submissions a step ahead, it was argued that post completion of 13 years of service, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of gratuity, which could not have been forfeited, only on account of resignation. So much so, the gratuity deposited by the petitioner could not have been forfeited, as no punishment was ever inflicted upon him, resulting in any kind of loss to the department. While concluding, he asserted that Rule 21 of the Rules of 2016, has no applicability to the case of the petitioner, in any manner, as he had resigned much prior to the promulgation thereof, i.e. in the year 2012, and therefore, the same cannot be made to work retrospectively just to deprive him of his rightful claim. To reinforce his submissions, he placed reliance upon decisions rendered by Coordinate Benches of this Court in Haryana State through Collector, District Bhiwani, Bhiwani Vs. Madan Pal Ahlawat , 2003 (1) PLR 346; and Naresh Kumar Sharma, Vs. State of Haryana and