Service Law:
Pension – Claim for – Voluntary retirement taken on 2.2.1988 – Fresh appointment on 3.8.1994 on the recommendation of Education Minister – The Board of School Education decided to condone the period from 2.2.1988 to 2.8.1994 by treating the same as leave without pay for continuity of service for the purpose of pension and seniority – There were Audit objections stating that the relevant rule 4.23 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. III, only authorised condonation of break of service upto one year duration and that period from 2.2.1988 to 2.8.1994 could be condoned only by relaxing r. 4.23 – Board’s request for relaxation in r. 4.23 was declined – On retirement, retiral benefits of only re-employment given – Writ petition claiming pension and other retiral benefits for the entire service period by adding interruption period in his service – Writ petition was dismissed – Review as well as Letters Patent appeal against the order of Single Judge dismissed – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: When the statute does not permit condonation of interruption of period from 2.2.1988 to 2.8.1994 and relaxation of the relevant rule i.e. r. 4.23 had been refused, no fault can be found in the decision of respondent refusing to grant the benefit of condonation by adding the earlier period of service – Appellant’s period of service after fresh appointment being less than qualifying service of 10 years, he was not entitled to pension – Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II – r. 4.23. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Rule 4.23 does not permit condonation of interruption of more than one year’s duration, hence the case of the appellant was not covered under Rule 4.23 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, volume II. It was due to this reason that a letter was written by the Government for obtaining relaxation under Rule 4.23. The relaxation from Rule 4.23 as claimed by the appellant was not acceded to by the Government, which was communicated by letter dated 24.08.2001 of Director, Secondary Education Haryana, Chandigarh. Therefore, the case of the appellant was not covered by Rule 4.23 and further the request for granting relaxation by the Government from Rule 4.23 was not acceded to. When the State has refused to grant relaxation in the rule, the refusal by the respondent for adding the period of interruption for pensionary benefit cannot be faulted. [Paras 10-12] [338-A-D; 339-B]
2. Letter dated 05.12.1994, which was also a letter from Financial Commissioner & Secretary was based on Rule 4.22, which mentioned that period of break in service of the appellant be condoned which can only be treated as leave without pay, which can only be counted for seniority and pension. The said letter cannot come to the rescue of the appellant since it did not refer to Rule 4.23, which was relevant and Rule 4.22, which referred to interruption in period of absence and the period from 02.02.1988 to 02.08.1994 was not period of absence but was a period when the appellant had already taken voluntary retirement. [Para 13] [339-F-G]
3. At no stage, the Government had condoned the interruption between 02.02.1988 to 02.08.1994. When the Statute does not permit condonation of interruption of period from 02.02.1988 to 02.08.1994 and the proposal for granting relaxation in Rule 4.23 had been refused, no fault can be found in the decision of the respondent refusing to grant the benefit of condonation by adding the earlier period. The appellant’s period after fresh appointment from 03.08.1994 being less than qualifying service of 10 years, he was not entitled for pension. [Para 14 and 15] [340-B, D]
Subedar Harpal Singh, Retd. v. State of Haryana and Another (1994) 1 SLR 436 – referred to.
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.