Service Law: Pension – Respondent was initially appointed in 1967 as Assistant Charge Man in the Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board from where his services were transferred to the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation, where he worked till
12 th April 1977 – Respondent resigned from Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation to take up appointment as Assistant Director (Agro-Industries) in the Department of Industries in the State of Rajasthan, after being selected through the RPSC – High Court held that service rendered by respondent/writ petitioner prior to resignation from the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation should be counted for the purpose of pension – Held: There can be no doubt that resignation from service may entail forfeiture of past service – However, sub-rule (2) of r.25 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 carves out an exception – The said sub-rule clarifies that a resignation with proper permission to take up another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government shall not entail forfeiture of past service – Respondent applied for the post of Assistant Director (AgroIndustries), while he was still in service of the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation, which is also an entity fully controlled by the State of Rajasthan – Respondent having retired after working for about 26 years, the State cannot raise the question of proof of prior permission before resignation, more so when the appointment had been made through the RPSC to a Government post – It is to be presumed that prior permission had been taken unless the contrary could be established by the State – High Court rendered a just decision based on a purposive interpretation of Rule 25(2) of the Rules applied to the admitted facts on record. The interpretation given by the High Court to Rule 25(2) of the Rules is a plausible interpretation.
Constitution of India: The State is bound by the fundamental rights of its employees under Arts.14 to 16 of the Constitution of India – It is now well settled that arbitrariness violates the right to equality under Arts.14 to 16 of the Constitution of India. Writ jurisdiction: Relief under Art.226 of the Constitution of India being discretionary, the Courts might in their discretion refuse to entertain the Writ Petition, where there is gross delay on the part of the Writ Petitioner, particularly, where the relief sought would, if granted, unsettle things, which are already settled – In the instant case, although there was a delay of six years in filing the writ petition, however, the laws of limitation do not apply to exercise of jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India – Respondent-Writ Petitioner is claiming pension, which is a life long benefit – Denial of pension is a continuing wrong – When financial rules framed by the Government such as Pension Rules are capable of more interpretations than one, the Courts should lean towards that interpretation which goes in favour of the employee. Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There can be no doubt that resignation from service may entail forfeiture of past service. However, sub-rule
(2) of Rule 25 of the Rules carves out an exception. The said sub-rule clarifies that a resignation with proper permission to take up another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government shall not entail forfeiture of past service. The Respondent was selected through the RPSC. He applied for the post of Assistant Director (Agro-Industries), while he was still in service of the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation, which is also an entity fully controlled by the State of Rajasthan. The Respondent having retired after working for about 26 years, the Petitioner - State cannot raise the question of proof of prior permission before resignation, more so when the appointment had been made through the RPSC to a Government post. It is to be deemed that there has been disclosure of past service and the application has been made through proper channel by obtaining the requisite approvals. [Paras 23, 24, 25][328-B-F]
1.2 It is to be presumed that prior permission had been taken unless the contrary could be established by the State. May be there was a delay of six years in filing the Writ Petition, however, it is well settled that the laws of limitation do not apply to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being discretionary, the Courts might in their discretion refuse to entertain the Writ Petition, where there is gross delay on the part of the Writ Petitioner, particularly, where the relief sought would, if granted, unsettle things, which are already settled. In this case, the Respondent-Writ Petitioner is claiming pension, which is a life long benefit. Denial of pension is a continuing wrong. This Court cannot also be oblivious to the difficulties of a retired employee in approaching the Court, which could include financial constraints. It is settled law that when financial rules framed by the Government such as Pension Rules are capable of more interpretations than one, the Courts should lean towards that interpretation which goes in favour of the employee. [Paras 26, 27, 28][328-F-H; 329-A-B]
N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandossand Ors. (2007) 9 SCC
196 : [2007] 2 SCR 419; Citing Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Employees AIR 1959 SC
633 : [1959] 2 Suppl. SCR 136 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.