HANS RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question raised in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the service rendered by the Petitioner from 19th May, 1964 to 14th October, 1978 while working as Agriculture Inspector with Respondents 1 to 3 has to be considered as qualifying service for the purposes of granting him pension within the meaning of Rule 3.17A(l)(v) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II, or on account of his resignation it would be forfeited as no permission to join service with the State Bank of Patiala - -Respondent 4 was obtained from the competent authority.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed on the post of Agriculture Inspector and joined as such on 19th May, 1964. He was sent on deputation as Technical Officer (Agriculture) to the State Bank of Patiala on 23rd May, 1977. On 13th October, 1978 he formally submitted his resignation with the object of getting permanently absorbed with the State Bank of Patiala which was considered in public interest. It is appropriate to mention that service rendered by the Petitioner with Respondents 1 to 3 was pensionable. Therefore, he retired from the service of State Bank of Patiala on 31st December, 1997. On 7th February, 1998, the Petitioner submitted a representation to Respondents 1 to 3 for grant of pensionary benefits which culminated into sending a legal notice through his counsel. It is appropriate to mention that some queries on the representation dated 7th February, 1998 were raised and the same were answered on 12th April, 1998.

(3.) MR . V. K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has raised two -fold submission ; firstly the learned Counsel has submitted that by no stretch of imagination the Petitioner could be considered as a temporary employee and in any case even the temporary employees are entitled to grant of pension under Rule 3.17 of the Rules. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of M.M. Lal Bareja v. State of Haryana, 1995 (2) S.C.T. 178. The other submission made by the learned Counsel is that his case is fully covered by Rules 3.17A(l)(v) read with Rules 4.23 and 5.3(1) of the Rules. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the time of his transfer/deputation from the Respondent, it was a pensionable service and he had gone to State Bank of Patiala, where the service was non -pensionable. It was on his absorption that the Petitioner was asked to tender resignation in public interest. He has referred to the orders Annexures R -l and R -2 attached with the written statement filed by Respondents 1 to 3 to urge that under the Rules, the principle recognised is that once a resignation has been tendered to take up another appointment, then the principle of forfeiture of service contemplated by Rule 3.1.7 -A(l)(v) read with Rules 4.23 and 5.3(1) of the Rules. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the time of his transfer/deputation from the Respondent -department, it was a pensionable service and he had gone to State Bank of Patiala, where the service was non -pensionable. It was on his absorption that the Petitioner was asked to tender resignation in public interest. He has referred to the orders Annexures R -l and R -2 attached with the written statement filed by Respondents 1 to 3 to urge that under the Rules, the principle recognised is that once resignation has been tendered to take up another appointment, then the principle of forfeiture of service contemplated by Rule 3.17 -A(l)(v) of the Rules, would not be attracted. According to the learned Counsel, apart from the hyper technical objection raised by Respondents 1 to 3 that he had not applied through proper channel, there is no violation of the Rules considering the service rendered by the Petitioner as qualifying service for pension. The learned Counsel has argued that at the time of accepting his resignation with effect from 14th October, 1978, no objection was raised nor the Petitioner was apprised that his past service would be forfeited and it would not qualify for pension.