GHANSHYAM DASS RELHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(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 transferred to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, 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.

(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 of Haryana the petitioner resigned from the post of 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 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, Karnal and Kurukshetra. On being asked to submit an application for pension in the prescribed proforma 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 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 Writ Petition on 7.8.2006 upon holding that the petitioner was not entitled to pension under Rule 5.2(a) of the aforesaid Rules because he had not rendered qualifying service of at least 30 years. The said decision of the High Court has been challenged in this Special Leave Petition.

(3.) Appearing in support of the Special Leave Petition, Mr. S. K. Dholakia, learned senior counsel, submitted that since 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 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.