Summary
The respondent served from 1967 in the Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board and its successor Agro Industry Corporation in pensionable service. In 1977, selected through the RPSC, he resigned to join the State's Industries Department as Assistant Director. He retired in 2003, and the State excluded his 1967–77 service from his pension. The High Court directed that the earlier service be counted under Rule 25(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. The Supreme Court dismissed the State's special leave petition. Resignation to take up another government appointment with proper permission does not forfeit past service. After 26 years of service following RPSC selection, prior permission is presumed unless the State proves otherwise. Denial of pension is a continuing wrong, so delay was no bar, and ambiguous pension rules are read in the employee's favour.
Issues
- Whether resignation from a State corporation to take up a government post on RPSC selection forfeits past pensionable service under Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996
- Whether the State could resist counting that service for want of proof of prior permission, and whether a six-year delay barred the writ petition
Provisions considered
- Rule 25(1) and (2), Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996Although resignation normally forfeits past service, sub-rule (2) excepts a resignation submitted with proper permission to take up another government appointment where service qualifies. The respondent's earlier pensionable service therefore counted. (¶¶ 14, 15, 23)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaLimitation does not strictly apply to writ jurisdiction. Since denial of pension is a continuing wrong, a six-year delay did not warrant refusing relief. (¶¶ 26, 27)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaThe concurrent finding that the respondent resigned with proper permission, and the High Court's plausible interpretation of Rule 25(2), did not call for interference. (¶¶ 19, 31, 32)
Held
- Resignation may entail forfeiture of past service, but Rule 25(2) excepts a resignation tendered with proper permission to take up another government appointment. The respondent applied while serving a State-controlled corporation and was appointed through the RPSC to a government post. The concurrent finding that he resigned with proper permission did not warrant interference under Article 136. (¶¶ 16, 18, 19, 23, 24)
- After the respondent had worked about 26 years following RPSC selection, the State could not question the absence of proof of prior permission. Disclosure of past service and application through proper channels are to be presumed unless the State proves otherwise. Arbitrary action by the State against its employees offends Articles 14 to 16. (¶¶ 22, 25, 26)
- Relief under Article 226 may be refused for gross delay that would unsettle settled matters. But pension is a lifelong benefit and its denial a continuing wrong, and the difficulties retired employees face in approaching courts must be borne in mind. Where pension rules admit more than one interpretation, courts should lean towards the one favouring the employee. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28)
Result
Special leave petition dismissed. The High Court's direction to count the respondent's service from 1967 to 1977 for pension and retiral benefits was upheld.