The State Of Punjab vs Gurbaran Singh

1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2411 OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.28798 of 2018)

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. …Appellants

VERSUS

GURBARAN SINGH …Respondent

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 31.08.2017

passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular

Second Appeal No.1576 of 2015.

3. The respondent was appointed as a pharmacist by the Director Health

Services, Punjab on 05.09.1975 in the pay-scale of Rs.140-6-1030 on regular

basis. During his tenure the respondent was posted at various districts.

While being posted at Ferozepur, he tendered his resignation by letter dated

27.06.1986. The resignation was accepted by the Civil Surgeon, Civil

Hospital, Muktsar, Punjab. The respondent, thereafter, filed various CIVIL APPEAL NO. ………….OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NO.28798 OF 2018 THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. VS. GURBARAN SINGH

2 representations contending that he was entitled to pension and service benefits

but was granted only gratuity and General Provident Fund.

4. The respondent being aggrieved by non grant of pension, filed Civil

Suit No.74 of 2009 claiming pensionary benefits in respect of service

rendered by him. Since the appellants failed to file written statement, their

defense was struck off. On 16.11.2012 the Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Bathinda, decreed the suit and directed the appellants to pay to the respondent

pensionary benefits with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decree.

5. The decision of the Trial Court was appealed against by the appellants

by filing Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2013 before the Additional District Judge,

Bathinda, which also came to be dismissed on 23.12.2014. The judgments

rendered by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were challenged by filing

Second Appeal No.1576 of 2015 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh. It was submitted by the appellant that the matter was covered by

Rule 7.5(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I (for short ‘the

Rules’) in terms of which no retiral benefits would be admissible to an

employee who resigned from service. The submission was rejected and the

High Court dismissed said Second Appeal on 31.08.2017. The view taken by

the High Court is presently under challenge.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. ………….OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NO.28798 OF 2018 THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. VS. GURBARAN SINGH

3

6. We have heard Ms. Uttara Babbar, learned advocate for the State and

Mr. Kumar Shashank, learned advocate for the respondent. Ms. Babbar relied

upon the decision of this Court in Union of India and others vs. Braj

Nandan Singh1, which considered Rule 26 of the Central Civil Service

(Pension) Rules (‘CCS Rules’ for short) and held that resignation from service

would entail forfeiture of past service.

7. Sub-Rules (1) and (2) of Rule 7.5 of the Rules which are relevant for

the present purposes are to the following effect:-

“7.5 (1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in 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 for pension.”

8. In Braj Nandan Singh1 a pari materia provision viz. Rule 26 of CCS

Rules came up for consideration. Para 5 of the decision was as under:-

“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 a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by

1 (2005) 8 SCC 325 CIVIL APPEAL NO. ………….OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NO.28798 OF 2018 THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. VS. GURBARAN SINGH

4 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 to 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 CIVIL APPEAL NO. ………….OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NO.28798 OF 2018 THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. VS. GURBARAN SINGH

5 terms of Rule 26 sub-rule (1) the past service stands forfeited. That being so, it has to be held that for the purpose of deciding question of entitlement to pension the respondent did not have the qualifying period of service. There is no substance in the plea of the learned counsel for the respondent that Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) has limited operation and does not wipe out entitlement to pension as quantified in Rule 49. The said rule deals with amount of pension and not with entitlement.”

9. It was thus clearly laid down that in case of resignation from service

or a post, unless the matter was covered under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 26 of CCS

Rules, it would entail forfeiture of past service. Since the past service would

stand forfeited, the same would be excluded from the period of qualifying

service, and as such for deciding the question of entitlement to pension, the

employee would not have the qualifying period of service.

10. We see force in the submission advanced by Ms. Babbar, learned

advocate for the appellant. She is absolutely right on the scope and

interpretation of Rule 7.5(1) of the Rules and the decision relied upon

completely supports her submissions. Mr. Kumar Shashank, learned advocate

for the respondent did not seriously contest the matter on the scope and

interpretation of Rule 7.5(1) of the Rules, and finally submitted that whatever

monetary benefits the respondent had received in terms of the orders passed

by the courts below may not be recovered from him. We are given to CIVIL APPEAL NO. ………….OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NO.28798 OF 2018 THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. VS. GURBARAN SINGH

6 understand that in May, 2018 i.e. after the judgment of the High Court, which

is presently under appeal, an amount of Rs.3,94,474.89 was made over to the

respondent.

11. Considering the totality of the circumstances we direct:-

a) This appeal stands allowed. The judgment and order dated

31.08.2017 passed by the High Court is set aside and Civil

Suit No.74 of 2009 filed by the respondent before the Civil

Judge, Senior Division, Bathinda stands dismissed.

b) The amount which was made over to the respondent in

May, 2018, as aforesaid, shall not be recovered from the

respondent, but no further payments shall be released or

paid to the respondent.

c) This appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

d) No costs.

………..…..……..……J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

..………….……………J. (Indu Malhotra) New Delhi, March 01, 2019.