Summary
The Court rejected a resigned employee’s pension claim because the governing rule forfeited his past service. It protected the amount already paid pursuant to the lower courts’ orders from recovery, while directing that no further payments be made.
Issues
- Whether resignation forfeited the service relied on for pension entitlement.
- Whether pension payments already received should be recovered.
Provisions considered
- Rule 7.5(1) and (2), Punjab Civil Services RulesResignation entails forfeiture of past service unless withdrawn in public interest; the exception for properly permitted movement to another qualifying government appointment did not sustain this claim. (¶¶ 5, 7, 8, 9, 10)
- Rule 26(1) and (2), Central Civil Services (Pension) RulesThe Court applied the reasoning of the precedent construing the equivalent rule: forfeited service cannot count towards qualifying service for pension. (¶¶ 6, 8, 9)
Held
- The clear forfeiture rule governs entitlement to pension, rather than merely its amount. After resignation, the past service relied on by the employee could not be included in qualifying service, and the decree granting pension could not stand. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10)
- In the circumstances, Rs 3,94,474.89 already paid in May 2018 under the lower court orders was protected from recovery, but further payment was prohibited. (¶¶ 10, 11)
Result
State appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and employee’s suit dismissed. Amount already paid protected from recovery; no further payments. No costs.