Holding

The petitioner is not entitled to any pension because he did not complete the qualifying service of 30 years and his bank service does not count, so Rule 5.32‑A governs and the High Court judgment stands.

Summary

Ghanshyam Dass Relhan was appointed as a clerk in the Haryana Government in 1958, confirmed and later promoted, and resigned in 1977 after obtaining permission to join the Kurukshetra Central Bank as a Senior Accountant. He retired from the bank in 1997, received retirement benefits but not a pension, and claimed a pension based on his 18 years of government service. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed his claim, holding that under Rule 5.32-A a government employee must complete at least 30 years of qualifying service (or 25 years in special cases) to be eligible for a retiring pension, and service in the bank does not count towards this. On SLP, the Supreme Court examined the interpretation of Rules 4.19(a), 4.19(b), 5.32-A and 6.16(2) and concluded that the petitioner’s resignation forfeited his right to pension and that Rule 6.16(2) applies only to retirement, not resignation. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court’s decision and dismissed the petition.

Issues considered

Whether a government employee who resigns after 10 years of service and later retires from a private bank is eligible for a pro‑rata pension under Rule 6.16(2).
Interpretation of Rule 4.19(a) and 4.19(b) regarding resignation and its impact on pension entitlement.
Whether service rendered in a bank counts towards the qualifying service required under Rule 5.32‑A for a retiring pension.
Whether Rule 6.16(2) can be divided into two separate compartments for retirement and pro‑rata pension.

Subjects

pensiongovernment serviceresignationqualifying servicepro‑rata pensionPunjab Civil Services RulesRule 5.32‑ARule 6.16(2)Rule 4.19superannuationbank servicecivil service pension

Judgment

(2009) 10 S.C.R. 603

GHANSHYAM DASS RELHAN A
V.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (c) No. 98 of 2007)
JULY 16, 2009
B
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

Punjab Civil Services Rules - Rules 6. 16(2) and 5. 32-A
- Pension - Benefit of - Entitlement to - Confirmed
employee in the service of State Government, resigning after C
completing 18 years to join bank service - Employee sought

.
permission of State Government - Superannuation from bank
service - Claim of benefit of pension - Rejection of, by High
Court - Interference with - Held: Not called for- Rule 5.32-A
"' provides that Government employee is entitled to pension on D
acceptance of his resignation subject to his completing
qualifying service of not less than 30 years and 25 years in
special cases - Petitioner did not complete qualifying service
of 30 years - His service rendered with the bank would not
be -counted towards Government service, thus not entitled to E
pension under Rule 6. 16(2).

In 1958, appellant was appointed as clerk in the office
of State Government and confirmed to the said post.
Thereafter, he was promoted as stenographer. In 1977,
he resigned from the said post and joined the F
Kurukshetra Central Bank Limited as Senior Accountant.
On 30.09.1997 he retired from the bank on
superannuation. He was paid retiral benefits but was not
paid pension. He made a representation but the same was
rejected. Writ petition was also dismissed. Hence, the G
present petition.

Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court

603 H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A HELD: 1.1 It cannot be said that in view of the
provisions of Rule 4.19(b) read with the latter portion of
Rule 6.16(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, the
petitioner will be eligible and entitled to pro rata pension
having rendered more than 10 years' service which has
B been indicated as the qualifying service in the latter
portion of the said Rule for the purpose of receiving pro-
rata pension. [Para 15] (613-A-B]

1.2. The expression 'resignation from public service'
will have to be read disjunctively from 'dismissal or
C removal from it' The expression 'resignation from public
service' will not be qualified by the subsequent references
relating to anti-national activities. The expression
'dismissal or removal from it' will be qualified by the said
expression which would in both cases entail forfeiture of
D past service and disqualification so far as payment of
.
pension is concerned. In other words, read disjunctively,
resignation simpliciter from public service would entail
forfeiture of past service and no pension is to be granted
in the said circumstances. [Para 16] (613-C-D]
E
1.3. As far as Rule 4.19(b) is concerned it is quite
clear that resignation to take up with proper permission
another appointment, would have to be in a service,
which would count towards pension in Government
F service. It means that the subsequent appointment must
also be in public service and in such a case the
resignation would not amount to resignation of public
service. In such a case, continuity in public service would
be accepted in computing the qualifying service of 30
G years for grant of pension. (Para 17] (613-E-F]

1.4. Rule 6.16(2) cannot be divided into two separate
compartments. The second part of the said Rule is a
consequence of the first part, which deals with retirement
upon superannuation and not resignation, as in the
H
GHANSHYAM DASS RELHAN v. STATE OF 605
HARYANA & ORS.
instant case. In order to be eligible for pension the A
Government employee at the time of superannuation
would have to complete qualifying service of not less than
33 years or more. However, an exception has been made
in the second part of the said Rule which also allows the
benefit of pro- rata pension to employees who had B
rendered 10 years service or more. Not having
superannuated from government service, the petitioner
~ cannot come within the said category and his case would
instead be governed by Rule 5.32-A, which deals with
resignation. [Para 18] [613-H; 614-A-C] c
1.5. Rule 5.32-A clearly provides that a Government
employee is entitled on his resignation being accepted
to a retiring pension subject to his completing qualifying
..,, service of not less than 30 years which in special cases
could be reduced to 25 years. Since the petitioner has not D
completed the qualifying service of 30 years and since
the service rendered by him with the Bank would not be
counted towards Government service, the petitio_ner is
not entitled to the benefit of pension under Rule 6.16(2)
and the High Court has rightly decided the issue. E
Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the
judgment of the High Court. [Paras 19 and 20] [614-D-F]
!
Dr. Sajal Kanti Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal and
Ors. 2004(5) SLR 634, Distinguished. F
Praduman Kumar Jain vs. Union of India (1994 Supp (2)
SCC 548; Union of India vs. Rakesh Kumar (2001) 4 SCC
309; Reserve Bank of India vs. Cecil Dennis Solomon and
another (2004) 9 sec 461 and UCO Bank vs. Sanwar Mal
(2004) 4 SCC 412, Referred to. G

Case Law Reference:
2004(5) SLR 634 Referred to. Para 7

H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A 1994 Supp (2) SCC 548 Referred to. Para 8
(2001) 4 sec 309 Referred to. Para 13
(2004) 9 sec 461 Referred to. Para 14
(2004) 4 sec 412 Referred to. Para 14
B
2004(5) SLR 634 Distinguished. Para 17

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (C} Civil No. 98
of 2007.
c From the Judgment & Order dated 7.8.2006 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition
No. 8666 of 2005.

S.K. Dholakia and Balbir Singh Gupta for the Appellants.
D
P.S. Patwalia, Manjit Singh, AAG, Nikhil Jain, Ajay Pal,
Aman Preet Singh, Devesh Kumar Tripathi, Tushar Bakshi and
Harikesh Singh T.V. George for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as
a clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar on
7.11.1958 on being selected by the Punjab Subordinate
Services Selection Board, Chandigarh. On 11.1.1970 he was
F transferred to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamal,
in a permanent vacancy and was confirmed in the said post
therein with effect from 1.1.1970. He was promoted as
Stenographer and was posted in the office of the Deputy
Commissioner, Kurukshetra.
G 2. On 11.10.1976 some posts of Senior Accountants were
advertised by the Kurukshetra Central Bank Limited and upon ..
his application through proper channel he was selected for one
of the said posts. After taking permission of the Government

H
GHANSHYAM DASS RE4.HAN v. STATE OF 607
HARYANA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.)

of Haryana the petitioner resigned from the post of A
"' Stenographer and relinquished charge on 10.1.1977 when he
-... joined the said Bank as Senior Accountant. The petitioner
retired from the service of the Bank on superannuation on
30.9.1997 and was paid Contributory Provident Fund, Gratuity
and Leave Encashment, but not pension. The petitioner B
thereupon made a representation to the Chief Secretary,
Government of Haryana, for grant of pension as he had
rendered 18 years 2 months and 3 days of service between
7.11.1958 to 10.1.1977 in the office of Deputy Commissioner,
Hisar, Kamal and Kurukshetra. On being ask~d to submit an c
application for pension in the prescribed profoITT1a the petitioner
submitted the same on 14.4.2003 to the Deputy Commissioner,
Kurukshetra. On 17.5.2005, the petitioner was informed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, that he could not be given
pension in view of Rule 4.19 and Note 1 of Rule No.5.32(b) of
D
the Punjab Civil Services Rules. The said decision was
challenged by the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.8666 of
2005 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which dismissed
the WritPetition on 7.8.2006 upon holding that the petitioner
was not entitled to pension under Rule 5.2(a) of the aforesaid
E
Rules because he had not rendered
J
qualifying service of at least
30 years. The said decision of the High Court has been
challenged in this Special Leav!'l Petition.
~
3. Appearing in support of the Special Leave Petition, Mr.
S.K.Dholakia, learned senior counsel, submitted that since F
payment of pension is intended to be a social security after
retirement, the rules relevant thereof should be interpreted
liberally in favour of grant of such pension, which had not been
done by the High Court while passing the impugned order.
Mr. Dholakia submitted that Rule 4.19(a) could not be applied G
to the petitioner's case, inasmuch as, the said Rules
• contemplated resignation from public service on account of
anti~national activities such as sabotage, espionage etc. or for
misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency not due to age or failure to

- pass -a prescribed examination. H
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A 4. Mr. Dholakia urged that none of the said contingencies .
which entails forfeiture of past service and disqualification for
pension, apply to the petitioner's case. On the other hand,
according to Mr. Dholakia, the authorities, as well as the High
Court, should have applied the provisions of Rule 4.19(b) to the
-
B petitioner's case. For the sake of reference Rules 4.19(a) and
(b) are extracted hereinbelow:

"4.19(a) Resignation from public service, dismissal or
removal from it, either under proviso (c) to Article 311 (2)
of the Constitution for over anti-national activities such as
c sabotage, espionage etc. or for misconduct, insolvency,
inefficiency not due to age or failure to pass a prescribed
examination, entails forfeiture of past service and no
pension shall be granted in the aforementioned
circumstances:
D
Provided that in the rases of those Government
employees whose removal or dismissal results from
participation in other objectionable activities affecting or
endangering the security of the State, such proportionate
E pension may be granted as may be recommended by the
Committee by the Advisors constituted under the Haryana
Civil Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules,
1971.
•
(b) Resignation of an appointment to take up, with proper
F permission, another appointment, whether permanent or
temporary, service in which counts in full or in part, is not
a resignation of public service.

In cases where an interruption in service is inevitable
G due to the two appointments being at different stations,
such interruptions, not exceeding the joining time
permissible under the rules on transfer, shall be covered •
by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government
employee on the date of relief or by formal condonation
H under Rule 4.23 to the extent to which the period is not
GHANSHYAM DASS RELHAN v. STATE OF 609
HARYANA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
. covered by leave due to the Government employee." A
....... 5. In addition to the above Mr. Dholakia also referred to
Rule 6.16(2) of the aforesaid Rules, which reads as follows:

"6.16(2) In the case of a Government employee retiring on
or after the 1st April 1979, in accordance with the B
provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service
of not less than thirty-three years or more, the amount of
superannuation, retiring, invalid and compassionate
pensions shall be 50% of average emoluments as defined
in Rule 6.19 -C of these rules subject to·~ maximum of c
(Rs.3000/-)(Substituted vide No.1/2/1/CSR Vol.ll/91 -
Sr.AO(FD) dated 31.1.92) per mensem. However, in the
case of a Government employee who at the time of
retirement has rendered qualifying service of ten years or
..;
more but less than thirty three years, the amount of pension D
shall be such portion of tht> maximum admissible pension
as such the qualifying service of thirty three years, subject
to a maximum of (Rs.375/-) (Substituted vide No.1/2/1/
CSR.Vol.ll/91-Sr.A.0.(FD) Dated 31.1.92) per mensem ... "
E
6. Mr. Dholakia submitted that the first part of Rule 6.16(2)
would not apply to the petitioner since he had resigned from
the service of the Government of Haryana on 11.10. 1976, i.e.
{
prior to the date mentioned in the first part of said Rule.
However, according to Mr. Dholakia, the second part of the Rule
would apply since it indicat~s that in the case of a Government F
employee, who at the time of retirement has rendered qualifying
se1vice of 10 years or more, but less than 33 years, he would
be entitled to pension which would be subject to such portion
of the maximum pension on completion of the qualifying service
of 33 years subject to a maximum of Rs.375/-. Mr. Dholakia G
.; urged that the petitioner was at least entitled to the benefit of
the second portion of Rule 6.16(2) since he had completed
more than 18 years of service in the employment of the
Government of Haryana.
H
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 10 S.C.R.

A 7. In support of his submissions Mr. Dholakia referred to •
and relied upon a Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High .,.
Court in the case of Dr. Sajal Kanti Chakraborty vs. State of
West Bengal and ors. (2004(5) SLR 634] wherein Rule 33(1)
and (2) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement
B Benefit) Rules, 1971, which are pari materia to Rule 4.19(a)
and (b), fell for consideration and by applying Rule 33(2), which
is akin to Rule 4.19(b ), the Calcutta High Court held that the
resignation of the employee would not be treated as resignation
from public service and would entitled him to pension in terms
c of Rule 59 of the said Rules.
8. Reference was also made to the decision of this Court
in Praduman Kumar Jain vs. Union of India ((1994 Supp (2)
sec 548] which involved the right to pension claimed by the
appellant after having completed more than· 10 years service
D without interruption. This Court held that despite the fact that
the appellant had not been con11rmed in service, but having
resigned to join as Central Government Undertaking, he must
be held to have fulfilled the requirement of substantive
appointment and the requisite length of qualifying service.
E
9. Mr. Dholakia urged that since Rule 4.19(b) provides that
resignation of appointment to take up, with proper permission
another appointment, whether permanent or temporary, service
in which counts in full or in part, is not a resignation of public
F service, the petitioner should also be given the benefit thereof
for the purpose of computing qualifying service at the time of
his superannuation from the service of the Bank.

10. On the other hand, Mr. P.S.Patwalia, learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondents, began where Mr.
G Dholakia ended and urged that the expression used in Rule
4.19(b) namely "service in which counts in full or in part" can
only mean that a employee who after resignation claims the
• '
benefit of Rule 4.19(b) has to subsequently join a service which
is pensionable. He also urged that Rule 6.16 (2) of the Rules,
H
GHANSHYAM DASS RELHAN v. STATE OF 611
HARYANA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
.. on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Dholakia, would not A
:\ apply in the facts of this case in view of Rule 5.32-A which deals
with grant of retiring pension.

11. For the sake of reference the said Rule is extracted
hereinbelow:
B
"5.32-A. The rule for the grant of retiring pensions is as
., follows:

(a) A Government employee is entitled, on his resignation
being accepted, to a retiring pension after completing c
qualifying service of not less than 30 years, but a
competent authority may permit the pension to be granted
in Special cases where the qualifying service is not less
than 25 years .
• D
(b) A retiring pension is also granted to a Government
employee who is required by Government to retire after
completing 25 years qualifying service or more a11d who
has not attained the age of 55 years."

12. Mr. Patwalia submitted that the afores;:iid Rule takes E
into account the resignation of a Government employee and his
right to pension after such resignation is accepted and the
{ same contemplates a qualifying service of not less than 30
years in order to be eligible to a retiring pension. Mr. Patwalia
pointed out that as far as Rule 6.16(2) is concerned the same F
does not deal with resignation but only retirement and that too
after 1.4.1979. He also urged that the said Rule could not be
divided into two compartments, as has been sought to be done
by Mr. Dholakia. He urged that the said Rule provides for
pension on retirement after completion of qualifying service. G
.,; The latter part of Rule 6.16(2) flows from the first half and
contemplates a situation where an employee may not have ..•
completed 33 years but 10 years of service and had made
such an employee who retired in the normal course entitled to
the benefit of pro rata pension in relation to his length of service.
H
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A 13. To bolster his submissions Mr. Patwalia referred to the •
decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Rakesh Kumar
[(2001) 4 SCC 309] in which the BSF Rules which are similar
to the Rules under consideration in this Special Leave Petition
were considered. Analyzing the provisions of Rule 48(a) and
B 49 of the Central Civil Service~ ,?ension) Rules, 1972, along
with the provisions of the BSF Rules 1969, the Court was of
the view that in the event the Government servant retires before
completing the period of qualifying service for pension he would
be entitled to gratuity which was to be calculated at a half
C month's emolument for every completed six months of
qualifying service. However, those Government servants, who
completed the qualifying service of 10 years, would be entitled
to payment of pro-rata pension in relation to their length of
service.

D 14. Mr. Patwalia also referred to another decision of this •
Court in Reserve Bank oi India vs. Cecil Dennis Solomon and
another [(2004) 9 sec 461] where the benefit of voluntary
retirement, which was equated with resignation by the High
Court, was held to be erroneous since it did not fall within the
E definition of "retirement" contemplated under the RBI
Regulations, 1948. He then referred to the decision of this Court
in UCO Bank vs. Sanwar Mal [(2004) 4 SCC 412] where the
difference between the words 'resignation' and 'retirement' was
noticed and explained. It was observed that the two
F expressions carry different meanings in common parlance. It
was held that an employee could resign at any time, but in the
case of retirement he could retire only upon attaining the age
of superannuation or in the case of voluntary retirement on
completion of qualifying service. Mr. Patwalia submitted that the
G decision of the High Court had been rendered on the basis of
the Rules relevant to the petitioner's case and did not warrant
any interference.

15. Ha"'.ing considered the submissions made on behalf
of the respective parties and the provisions of the Punjab Civil
H
GHANSHYAM DASS RELHAN v. STATE OF 613
HARYANA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
. Services Rules, we are unable to accept Mr. Dholakia's
submissions that in view of the provisions of Rule 4.19(b) read
A

with the latter portion of Rule 6.16(2) of the aforesaid Rules,
the petitioner will be eligible and entitled to pro rata pension
having rendered more than 10 years~ service which has been
indicated as the qualifying service in the latter portion of the B
said Rule for the purpose of receiving pro-rata pension.

16. In our view, Rule 4.19(a) has to be read and understood
differently from what has been urged by Mr. Dholakia. The
expression 'resignation from public service' will have to be read
disjunctively from 'dismissal or removal from it'. The expression
c
'resignation from public service' will not be qualified by the
subsequent references relating to anti-national activities. On the
other hand, the expression 'dismissal or removal from it' will
be qualified by the said expression which would in both cases
entail forfeiture of past service and disqualification so far as D
payment of pension is concerned. In other words, read
disjunctively, resignation simpliciter from public service would
entail forfeiture of past service and no pension is to be granted
in the aforesaid circumstances.
_, E
17. As far as Rule 4.19(b) is concerned it is quite clear
that resignation to take up with proper permission another
appointment, would have to be in a service, which would count
~
towards pension in Government service. It means that the
subsequent appointment must also be in public service and in F
such a case the resignation would not amount to resignation
of public service. In such a case, continuity in public service
would be accepted in computing the qualifying service of 30
years for grant of pension. It is a provision similar to Rule 4.19(b)
which was relied upon by the Division Bench of the Calcutta
G
High Court in deciding the case of Dr. Sajal Kanti Chakraborty
~ (supra), and distinguishes the said case from the facts of this
case.
18. As far as Rule 6.16(2) is concerned, in our view, the
H
614 SUPR.EME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A same cannot be divided into two separate compartments as
has been suggested by Mr. Dholakia. The second part of the "
said Rule is a consequence of the first part, which deals with
retirement upon superannuation and not resignation, as in the
instant case. In order to be eligible for pension the Government
B employee at the time of superanni..Jtion would have to complete
qualifying service of not less than 33 years or more. However,
an exception has been made in the second part of the said
Rule which also allows the benefit of pro- rata pension to •
employees who had rendered 10 years service or more. In our
c view, not having superannuated from government service, the
petitioner canpot come within the said category and as
submitted by Mr. Patwalia, his case would instead be governed
by Rule 5.32-A, which deals with resignation.

19. The said Rule clearly provides that a Government
D employee is entitled on his resignation being accepted to a •
retiring pension subject to his completing qualifying service of
not less than 30 years which in special cases could be reduced
to 25 years. Since the petitioner has not completed the
qualifying service of 30 years and since the service rendered
E by him with the Bank would not be counted towards Government
service, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of pension
under Rule 6.16(2) and the High Court has rightly decided the
issue.

F "20. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the
judgment of the High Court and the Special Leave Petition is,
therefore, dismissed, but without any order as to costs.

N.J. Special Leave Petition dismissed.