AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Raja, J.—The present writ petition is directed against the letter No. 29713/Pol XV/99/3 dated 14.05.99 passed by the respondent
declining to count the service rendered by the petitioner in Tamil Nadu State Government for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
The petitioner was selected to the post of Sub-Inspector (Category -I) in the year 1967 and was appointed to the post on 29.06.67. After
serving for about 11 years, he was promoted as Inspector of Police on out of seniority basis on 29.11.78. While serving as Inspector of Police, in
response to the advertisement published in the news paper for the post of Investigating Officer in the nationalised bank by Banking Services
Recruitment Board, Western Group, Bombay, the petitioner submitted an application for the post of Investigating Officer in the banking service on
08.04.84 through police department and the Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Madras forwarded his application to the Director General
of Police vide letter No. RC No. A1/12494/84, dated 23.04.84. Subsequently, the same was also forwarded to the Secretary, Banking Services
Recruitment Board by the Director General of Police with endorsement dated 16.06.84. Since there was no objection shown to the petitioner''s
selection and appointment as Investigating Officer in the banking services, the petitioner attended the interview conducted by the Banking Services
Recruitment Board, Western Group, Bombay and got selected to the post of Investigating Officer in Bank of India, Bombay. Thereafter, he has
submitted his letter of resignation dated 12.12.84 to the Director, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, with a request to relieve the petitioner from the
duty as Inspector of Police. In response to his request, the Director General of Police, by his proceedings dated 08.01.85, issued an order
directing the Deputy Director, Vigilance and Anti-corruption to relieve him from the police department. Accordingly, the petitioner was relieved
from the police department from 31.01.85 and joined the banking service on 04.02.85. Since the petitioner has put in 17 years and 10 months of
service from 29.03.67 to 31.01.85, the petitioner submitted a petition on 06.12.90 to the 2nd respondent requesting to take into consideration the
services rendered by him in the Tamil Nadu Police Department for sanctioning pension, gratuity and other terminal benefits, but the request of the
petitioner was rejected by the Director General of Police in his order in DD No. 330/241390/TPD/93/90, dated 09.04.91 stating that he has
resigned from the department after submitting his resignation and also giving undertaking that he will not claim any right over the past services.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Government of Tamil Nadu on 03.08.94 reiterating his earlier stand. The
Director General of Police, in his letter dated 21.02.97, recommended the claim of the petitioner for relaxation of Rule 41 and also Rule 23 of the
Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 in favour of the petitioner, in pursuant to the order issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 404, dated
06.06.91. In spite of the recommendation of the Director General of Police to the Government to count his service for pensionary benefits, the 1st
respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that G.O. Ms. No. 404, dated 06.06.91 cannot be made applicable to the case of
the petitioner because of absorption in bank and the request for relaxation cannot be complied with. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner
submitted a review to the Government on 06.05.98 and the same was also rejected by letter No. 50340/Pol.XV/98-1, dated 07.08.98 by the
Government. Aggrieved by the above said order, the present writ petition has been filed on the ground that the order passed by the 1st respondent
is unjust, illegal, irregular and unsustainable in law.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent has failed to consider Rule 41 of the General Rules as well as Rule
23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules in proper perspective. On that basis, prayed for setting aside the impugned order and pleaded for issuance of
direction to the respondent for the purpose of counting his past services for getting pensionary benefits.
On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner is neither entitled to get benefit of Rule 41 nor Rule
21, since the petitioner has voluntarily resigned from the service of the State Government and joined in banking service for better emoluments.
Further, it was also submitted that the petitioner, at the time of joining the banking service, has given an undertaking to the Director General of
Police that the petitioner would not claim the benefit of the past services for the purpose of getting pensionary benefits in future. Therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled to get pensionary benefits and, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
No doubt, the petitioner has rendered 17 years and 10 months of service in the police department. After rendering 17 years and 10 months of
service, the petitioner, having seen the advertisement published by the Banking Services Recruitment Board, Western Group, Bombay, for better
emoluments, thought fit to resign his State service, though he has acquired 17 years and 10 months of service from 29.03.67 to 31.01.85, and
joined the banking service.
In view of the fact that the petitioner has given undertaking that he would not claim the benefit of past services for the purpose of pensionary
benefits, the prayer of the petitioner that the respondent should consider the case of the petitioner by giving exemption under Rule 23 of the Tamil
Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 as well as Rule 41 of the General Rules, cannot be considered. Even Rule 23 of the Pension Rules also clearly
mentions that resignation from a service or post entails forfeiture of past service. The petitioner has admittedly resigned from the service of the
State Government and joined the banking service. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to have the benefit of the Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu
Pension Rules, 1978. Extract of Rule 41 of the General Rules is given as under:
Rule 41. Consequence of resignation - A member of a service shall if he resigns his appointment, forfeit not only the service rendered by him in the
particular post held by him at the time of resignation but all his previous service under the Government.
The reappointment of such person to any service shall be treated in the same way as a first appointment to such service by direct recruitment and
all rules governing such appointment shall apply; and on such reappointment he shall not be entitled to count any portion of his previous service for
any benefit or concession admissible under any rule or order;
Provided that nothing contained in this rule shall effect the operation of proviso to Rule 23 or of Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Liberalised Pension
Rules, 1978;
Provided further that a member of service, who has resigned his appointment and contested in General Election to parliament or State Legislature
or in the Elections to local bodies either as a party candidate or as an independent candidate, shall not be eligible for reappointment to any service.
A bare reading of Rule 41 of the General Rules, which is extracted as above, clearly shows that a member of a service shall, if he resigns his
appointment, forfeit not only the service rendered by him in the particular post held by him at the time of resignation but all his previous service
under the Government. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to have
the benefit of Rule 41 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. In this view of this matter, the present writ petition does not carry
any merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected O.A. No. 6600 of 1999 is closed.