Smt. Usha Jain vs Satish Chand Jain

The question that arises in this petition is that after his resignation from service, whether the entire service of an employee is forfeited as per rule 26 of the M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 as contended by the respondents to deny the benefit of pension to the petitioner, who was a Patwari, retired after serving for 15 years, 10 months and 11 days.

The petitioner in this case is aggrieved by the order dated 11.2.2015 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Office, Mandla whereby the claim of the petitioner for pension has been rejected despite the petitioner having completed 15 years and 10 months and 11 days service in the department and voluntarily got retirement on account of his ill-health by resigning on 21.2.1980 from the post of Patwari.

The contention of the petitioner is that since he had already completed the service of more than 15 years, he is entitled to get the pension. In the letter dated 21.2.1980, he has requested that his resignation be accepted. In the impugned order dated 11.2.2015, it

is mentioned that because of resignation tendered by an employee, his services stand forfeited as per Rule 26 of the M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976. It is also mentioned that since the petitioner has already got Rs.1430/- under G.P.F. and Rs.674/- under the Family Welfare Fund, 1974, under Section 17A of the Rules also, he is not entitled to get any pension.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The only contention of the petitioner is that he has already completed 15 years, 10 months and 11 days of service, hence he is entitled to get the pension. Whereas, according to the return filed by the respondent, the same is denied on the ground reiterating that Rule 26/17A of the Pension Rules are applicable in the petitioner''s claim for pension, hence the same cannot be granted to the petitioner. Rule 26 relates to forfeiture of service on resignation and reads as under :-

"26. Forfeiture of service on resignation.-(1) Resignation from a service or post entails forfeiture of past service:

Provided that a resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up with prior permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the State Government, where service qualifies.

[xxx]

(2) Interruption in service in a case falling under the proviso to sub-rule (1), due to the two appointments being at different stations, not exceeding the joining time permissible under the rules of transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government servant on the date of relief or by formal condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to the Government servant."

(emphasis supplied)

Rule 26 provides that where a person has resigned from

service, his past service would be forfeited. It means that as soon as the services are forfeited, there is no qualifying service which may be counted for the purpose of pension. In the circumstances no pension can be claimed by him in the absence of any qualifying service.

Further contention of the respondent that as per rule 17A since the petitioner has got gratuity and GPF, he is not entitled to get the pension but how the said rule is applicable in the present case has not been explained by the respondents. Rule 17A of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 reads as under :

"17A. Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 17, service which does not forfeit under sub-rule (1)(e) of rule 27 on account of interruption due to abolition of office or loss of appointment owing to reduction of establishment or due to transfer to non-qualifying service in an establishment under Government control under the orders of the competent authority, shall count for pension along with the period of break including spells of occasional service rendered during it or the period of non-qualifying service, as the case may be provided the Government servant has not received any retirement benefit for the previous service."

In the considered opinion of this court, the aforesaid rule 17A is not applicable in the present case, but the fact remains that the petitioner''s services have been forfeited because of his resignation and the petitioner is not able to demonstrate that how these rules are not applicable and some other rules of Pension Rules are applicable.

In the circumstances, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.