Jaspal Singh, J.:— Defendants are in second appeal challenging judgment & decree dated December 23, 2014 passed by the lower appellate court, whereby, appeal filed by the appellants has been dismissed and judgment & decree dated November 16, 2012 passed by the trial court has been upheld, whereby suit filed by the respondent - plaintiff seeking declaration and Mandatory injunction has been decreed to the effect that he is entitled to get pensionary benefits from the due date i.e. w.e.f. April 01, 1986 and the defendants have been directed to pay pensionary benefits such as pension, leave encashment etc. alongwith future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decree.
2. While assailing the impugned judgments & decrees passed by both the courts below, learned State counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the same being against law and facts, are liable to set aside. Principle of natural justice has been violated in the matter involving civil consequences and prejudiced the State against whom an order has been passed. The trial court failed to provide sufficient time to the defendants - appellants to file written statement and to lead evidence. As per Rule 7.5(1) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume - 1, Part 1 (for short, ‘Rules’), retiral benefits are not admissible to a Government employee who resigns from service. Learned counsel has prayed for setting aside of the judgments & decrees passed by the courts below.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that judgments & decrees passed by the Courts below are absolutely in consonance with the facts and settled proposition of law. Each and every aspect of the case has been taken into account while rendering the decisions. The defendants had filed two appeals against the decision rendered by the trial court. First appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. At the time of withdrawal of the previous appeal, no liberty was granted to file the second appeal. Learned counsel further contended that respondent has completed more than ten years of qualified service and as such, he is entitled to pensionary benefits.
4. This Court has given an anxious thought to the rival submission made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the record available but find that submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant do not carry any legal weight.
5. Respondent - plaintiff Gurbaran Singh instituted a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction to the effect that he is entitled to grant of pension as provided under Rule 6.16 of the Rules as he has completed more than 10 years of qualified service as Pharmacist with the defendants - appellants, and thus, defendants be directed to pay his retiral dues. Plaintiff alleged that he was appointed as Pharmacist in the pay scale of Rs. 140 - -1030 on regular basis through SSS Board by the Director, Health Services, Punjab vide appointment letter dated September 05, 1975 and joined as such in Rural Dispensary, Kular, District Ferozepur on September 15, 1975. During his service tenure, he remained posted at various districts. On March 31, 1986, after completing qualified service of more than 10 years, he voluntarily resigned from service while he was posted at Primary Health Center, Doda. Plaintiff requested the defendants a number of times to grant him pensionary benefits but he was only paid Gratuity and GPF Fund amount.
6. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of the appeal before lower appellate court, respondent - plaintiff had filed an application for dismissal of the appeal being second appeal at the behest of defendants - appellants on the ground that District Attorney vide letter No. 2427/DA dated December 21, 2012 had recommended that judgment & decree under appeal is not fit for appeal, in reply to which, defendants admitted that previously, appeal was withdrawn. Since there was no liberty to file another appeal on the same cause of action, the second appeal was not maintainable. Further, it is a settled proposition of law that where an employee has put in more than 10 years of qualifying service, he is entitled for pension and other retiral benefits as pre-mature retirement from service and voluntary resignation from service will have the same effect as someone is retiring from service. Similar view was taken by this Court in State Of Punjab… v. Gurkeerat Singh…., 2002 (4) Recent Service Judgments 440 (P&H), wherein it has been held that a person becomes entitled to grant of pension on completion of 10 years qualifying service. Similarly, this Court in Mangat Rai v. State of Punjab, 2000 (3) SCT 230 (P&H), has held that pensionary benefit is a civil right and pension should not be declined on the technical grounds or under the garb of limitation. The right to get pension is a continuing and recurring right. Admittedly, respondent - plaintiff has completed ten years of qualifying service before his resignation as accepted.
7. As far as the contention of appellants that they were not provided sufficient time to file written statement is concerned, perusal of record transpires that defendants put in appearance in the trial court on August 10, 2009, whereafter the case was adjourned to September 29, 2009, November 10, 2009 and December 21, 2009 but defendants failed to file written statement. Moreover, defendants filed an application under Section 151 CPC on March 08, 2010 for placing on record written statement but it was not placed on file during the period from March 08, 2010 to September 27, 2011. Thus, defendants were granted more than sufficient time to file written statement.
8. In the light of what has been discussed above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgments rendered by the courts below. No substantial question of law has been raised. Finding no merit in the instant appeal, same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.