LexSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus GURBARAN SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 839 STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. v. GURBARAN SINGH (Civil Appeal No. 2411 of 2019) MARCH 01, 2019 [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.] Service Law: Pensionary benefits – Claim of – Respondent working as pharmacist in the State Health Services on regular basis, tendered his resignation – Acceptance of resignation, however respondent not granted pension and service benefits but only gratuity and Provident Fund – Suit by respondent seeking pensionary benefits – Suit decreed and issuance of direction to the appellant to pay pensionary benefits – Said order upheld by courts below – On appeal, held: In case of resignation from service or a post, unless the matter was covered u/r.26(2) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) 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 entitlement to pension, the employee would not have the qualifying period of service – Thus, the order passed by the courts below is set aside – However, amount made over to respondent would not be recovered from him – Punjab Civil Services Rules – r. 7.5(1) – Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules – r. 26. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 In case of resignation from service or a post, unless the matter was covered under Rule 26(2) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) 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. [Para 9][843-B, C] [2019] 2 S.C.R. 839 839 A B C D E F G H 840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R. 1.2 The counsel for the appellant is absolutely right on the scope and interpretation of Rule 7.5(1) of the Rules. The respondent did not seriously contest the matter on the scope and interpretation of Rule 7.5(1) of the Rules. The judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside and the suit is dismissed. The amount made over to the respondent in May, 2018, after the judgment of the High Court, would not be recovered from him, but no further payments would be released or paid to the respondent. [Paras 10, 11][843-D-G] Union of India and others v. Braj Nandan Singh (2005) 8 SCC 325 : [2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 356 - referred to. Case Law Reference [ 2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 356 referred to Para 6 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2411 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2017 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 1576 of 2015. Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Advs. for the Appellants. Kumar Shashank, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Vishal Prasad, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 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 representations contending that he was entitled to pension and service benefits but was granted only gratuity and General Provident Fund. A B C D E F G H 841 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.1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.