Summary
An employee voluntarily retired and later freshly appointed could not combine the two service spells for pension by condoning a break exceeding six years. The Haryana version of Rule 4.23 permitted interruption of at most one year, and the Government had refused relaxation. The Court sustained dismissal of the claim on that ground, correcting the High Court’s reliance on a different version of the rules.
Issues
- Which version of the pension rules applied in Haryana.
- Whether the interruption could be condoned despite the one-year limit and refusal of relaxation.
Provisions considered
- Rules 4.22 and 4.23, Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, as applicable in HaryanaRule 4.23 imposed the one-year interruption limit; Rule 4.22 on unauthorised absence did not convert a period after voluntary retirement into leave. (¶¶ 8, 10, 12, 13)
Held
- The Haryana rules produced before the Court, supported by contemporaneous correspondence, differed from the version relied on below. Applicable Rule 4.23 did not permit condonation of an interruption exceeding one year. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8, 10)
- The Government declined relaxation and never condoned the break. The Board’s resolutions, which contemplated governmental opinion, and correspondence based on Rule 4.22 did not overcome that refusal or the governing rule. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14)
- The gap followed voluntary retirement rather than absence without leave. With no lawful condonation and less than ten years’ qualifying service after fresh appointment, the appellant was not entitled to pension. The dismissal below was sustained for the corrected reasons. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
Result
Appeal dismissed. Refusal to condone the interruption and combine the earlier service for pension was upheld under the Haryana rules and the Government’s refusal of relaxation.