KABAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point involved in the case is a claim for pension which was denied to the petitioner on the ground that he had voluntarily resigned from service and, therefore, he had forfeited his right to pension.

(2.) There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner had served in the military from 29.10.1942 to 04.08.1948 and later appointed as a driver under the Punjab Roadways on 11.08.1951, confirmed in that post and remained as such till he resigned voluntarily due to domestic reason on 24.08.1965. The petitioner invoked a circular issued by the Director State Transport Department, Punjab, on 29.01.1985, that all the persons, who had confirmed on 01.11.1955, will be entitled to pension if they refunded the component of State contribution of interest in contributory provident fund scheme. The claim for pension was, however, denied by the Haryana Roadways as a successor institution after the states reorganization carving out separate State of Haryana from Punjab. The order denying the same was cryptic in the sense that there was no issue regarding the fact that he did not have the requisite number of years of service but the only point taken was that since he had resigned from service, he was not entitled to pension.

(3.) The Civil Services Rules as applicable to Haryana is contained in Rule 7.5, Part I which states that resignation from service from a post unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in public interest or by the appointing authority entails forfeiture of past service. The counsel for the petitioner seeks to contend that this provision will not apply in a case where the resignation was not with an intent to evade any punishment but due to domestic reason. I find such an argument to be unacceptable but I will not hold out my objection since that is incidentally the view expressed by the Division Bench in Om Parkash Versus Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana and another, 2007 2 SCT 422. I find myself bound by the ruling of the Division Bench and hold that the denial of pension cannot, therefore, be upheld.