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

J U D G M E N T

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.