MANGILAL PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by the present petition, has challenged the Order Annexure A -5 dated 26.8.1993, by which the Government in the Finance Department has informed the petitioner that since he had resigned from the service, he was not entitled to any pension under the 'M.P. Pension Rules, 1951'.

(2.) AS per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed in the establishment of the District Judge, Jhabua on 15.7.1947 and later in the establishment of the District Judge, Ratlam. On account of certain personal reasons, the petitioner had tendered resignation which was accepted by the respondent -State by Annexure A -2 dated 18.11.1967. The New Pension Rules were amended on 28.4.1972 and Rule 2(2) was substituted to permit a Government servant to retire from service at any time after completing 20 years' qualifying superior service by giving notice in writing to the appointing authority atleast 3 months before the date on which he wishes to retire. A like option was made available to the Government in case of a Government servant after completing of his 30 years qualifying superior service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although this rule had been introduced on 28.4.1972 when the petitioner was no longer in service, the provision should be treated as retroactive and the resignation of the petitioner which was accepted by Annexure A -2 dated 18.11.1967 should be treated as a notice for voluntarly retirement and the petitioner should be extended the benefit of pension under the said M.P. New Pension Rules, 1951, as applicable in the case of a person who voluntary retires under the said Rule 2(2). Learned counsel has also invited attention to the decision of the Apex Court in D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India (AIR 1983 SC 130) in support of his contention that pension is nothing but a deferred portion of the compensation for the service rendered with the result, the service of the petitioner should not go unrewarded merely because at the time when the petitioner had resigned, the Rule permitting voluntary retirement was not there. Rule 2(2) as substituted by notification dated 10.3.1972 published in the M.P. gazette dated 28.4.1972 reads as follows :

(3.) THE question being academic, need no determination in this petition.