Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P (MD) No. 618 of 2012

Advocates

… Mr. K. Samidurai
For Respondents… Mrs. S. Bharathi, GA

Judges

Vinod K. Sharma, J.

Acts

ARTICLE 226 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
pension.4. Rule 23 of the Pension Rules
Rule 23 of the Pension Rules
Rule 23 of Pension Rules
Rule 26 sub-rules (1)
Rule 26 sub-rule (1)
sub-rule (1),

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to sanction pension and other retirement benefits.

The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Grade Laboratory Servant on 24.11.1981 and his service was later regularised. He served for 11 years and 8 months and resigned on 12.07.1993 on medical grounds. The petitioner contends that although Rule 23 of the Pension Rules ordinarily causes forfeiture of past service on resignation, the proviso to Rule 23 protects those who resign on medical grounds and entitles them to pension.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether resignation on medical grounds avoids forfeiture of past service under Rule 23 of the Pension Rules and thereby entitles the petitioner to pension and other retirement benefits.
Whether judicial authority relied upon by the petitioner (D. Vijayarangan v. Secy., Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Addl. Bench) ...) can be applied in the face of the Supreme Court's interpretation in Union of India v. Brajnandan Singh [(2005) 8 SCC 325].

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to sanction pension and retirement benefits.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that although Rule 23 provides for forfeiture of past service on resignation, the petitioner resigned on medical grounds and therefore falls within the protection of the proviso to Rule 23 and is entitled to pension.
Counsel relied on the judgment of the Division Bench in D. Vijayarangan v. Secy., Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Addl. Bench) (Madurai) (2009 Writ L.R 12), which was said to hold that an employee who resigns on grounds of illness or ill-health and not for misconduct, and is allowed to do so by the State, is entitled to the same benefits as those who resign to join another service under the State.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' specific arguments in the instant petition.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
D. Vijayarangan v. Secy., Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Addl. Bench). Bench), Madurai 20 [2009 Writ L.R 12)	Held that an employee who resigns on grounds of illness or ill-health (and not because of misconduct) and is allowed to do so by the State is entitled to the same benefits as those who resign to join another service under the State.	The court noted this decision as prima facie supportive of the petitioner's case but declined to treat it as controlling precedent in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Brajnandan Singh.
Union of India v. Brajnandan Singh [(2005) 8 SCC 325]	Interpreted the rule on forfeiture of past service on resignation (Rule 26 in that context): resignation entails forfeiture of past service unless submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment under the Government where service qualifies; the language is mandatory and the exception is narrow.	The court treated this Supreme Court decision as binding authority. It applied the rule that resignation results in forfeiture of past service (except in the specific exception) and held that the court cannot add words to the statutory rule to create an exception for resignation on medical grounds. This led to rejection of the petitioner's claim to pension.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by reproducing Rule 23 of the Pension Rules, which provides that resignation from service entails forfeiture of past service, with a proviso creating a limited exception where resignation is submitted to take up another appointment with proper permission under the Government.

The petitioner's counsel relied on a Division Bench decision (D. Vijayarangan) that had held resignation on grounds of illness could be treated similarly to resignation to join another service. The court observed that, although that decision prima facie supported the petitioner's case, it could not be treated as a controlling precedent in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Brajnandan Singh.

Relying on the Supreme Court's interpretation of an analogous provision (Rule 26) in Brajnandan Singh, the court emphasized that the statutory language is mandatorily couched: resignation entails forfeiture of past service unless it falls within the narrow exception of resignation to take up another appointment with proper permission. The Supreme Court held that after acceptance of resignation past service stands forfeited and cannot be counted as qualifying service for pension; courts cannot read additional exceptions into plain statutory text.

Applying that binding interpretation, the court concluded it could not treat a medical resignation as equivalent to a resignation to join another government appointment and therefore could not grant the pension the petitioner sought.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The writ petition is DISMISSED.

Implications:

The immediate effect is that the petitioner’s claim for pension and other retirement benefits based on his resignation on medical grounds was denied.
The court relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation to hold that Rule 23 operates to forfeit past service upon resignation except in the narrow case of resignation to take up another government appointment with permission; the court refused to expand the rule to cover medical resignations.
The opinion does not purport to create or announce a broader departure from existing higher-court authority; no new precedent was created by this decision. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Show full summary ...

D.R Premkumari Petitioner v. The Director, The Directorate Forensic Science, Department, Chennai-04.

PRAYER

Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to sanction penson and other retirement benefits to the petitioner.

:ORDER

The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to sanction pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Grade Laboratory Servant on 24.11.1981 in the respondent-department. The service of the petitioner was subsequently regularised. The petitioner served the department for 11 yeas and 8 months. Thereafter, the petitioner resigned on 12.07.1993, on medical grounds.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though as per Rule 23 of the Pension Rules the resignation results in forfeiture of service, but as the petitioner had resigned on medical ground, he is protected under proviso to Rule 23 of the Pension Rules therefore, entitled to pension.

4. Rule 23 of the Pension Rules reads as under:-

“Forfeiture of service on resignation:-

(1) Resignation from a service or post entails forfeiture of past service:

Provided that 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.

(2) Interruption in service in a case falling under the proviso to sub-rule (1), due to the two appointments being at different stations, not exceeding the joining time permissible of any kind due to the Government servant on the date of relief or by formal condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to the Government servant.”

5. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in D. Vijayarangan v. Secy., Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Addl. Bench). Bench), Madurai 20 [2009 Writ L.R 12) wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to hold that employee who resigns on ground of illness or ill-health and not because of misconduct or adverse record, and in case he is allowed to do so by the State, then he is entitled to same benefit which are allowed to those who resign to join another service under the State.

6. Though this judgment prima facie supports the case of the Workman, but with due respect to the Hon'ble Division Bench, this judgment cannot be taken as a precedent, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Brajnandan Singh [(2005) 8 SCC 325], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down 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 post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the 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.”

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 of 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 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. Said Rule deals with amount of pension and not with entitlement.

6. It is well settled principle in law that the Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the Legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent.”

7. It is not possible for this Court to add words to the statutory rules, to hold that a person who resigned from service on medical ground or for some other reason can be treated at par with those employees who resign to join other service. The Rule 23 of Pension Rules is clear that a resignation results in forfeiture of service which disentitles the government employee to pension.

8. For the reasons stated, there is no merit in this writ petition which is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs.

D.R Premkumari Petit... v. The Director, The Di...