Madras High Court
D.R.Premkumari vs The Director on 3 October, 2012
Author: Vinod K.Sharma
Bench: Vinod K.Sharma
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03/10/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.(MD)No.618 of 2012 D.R.Premkumari ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director, The Directorate Forensic Science, Department, Chennai-04. 2.The Assistant Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai. ...Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to sanction penson and other retirement benefits to the petitioner. !For Petitioner ... Mr.K.Samidurai ^For Respondents... Mrs.S.Bharathi, GA :ORDER
*********** The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to sanction pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner.
2.The petitioner was appointed as Junior Grade Laboratory Servant on 24.11.1981 in the respondent-department. The service of the petitioner was subsequently regularised. The petitioner served the department for 11 yeas and 8 months. Thereafter, the petitioner resigned on 12.07.1993, on medical grounds.
3.It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though as per Rule 23 of the Pension Rules the resignation results in forfeiture of service, but as the petitioner had resigned on medical ground, he is protected under proviso to Rule 23 of the Pension Rules therefore, entitled to pension.
4.Rule 23 of the Pension Rules reads as under:-
"Forfeiture of service on resignation:-
(1)Resignation from a service or post entails forfeiture of past service:
Provided that a resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up with proper permission, another appointment whether temporary or permanent under the Government where service qualifies. (2)Interruption in service in a case falling under the proviso to sub-rule (1), due to the two appointments being at different stations, not exceeding the joining time permissible of any kind due to the Government servant on the date of relief or by formal condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to the Government servant."
5.In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in D.Vijayarangan Vs. Secretary, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Addl. Bench), Madurai 20 and another [2009 Writ L.R. 12) wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to hold that employee who resigns on ground of illness or ill-health and not because of misconduct or adverse record, and in case he is allowed to do so by the State, then he is entitled to same benefit which are allowed to those who resign to join another service under the State.
6.Though this judgment prima facie supports the case of the Workman, but with due respect to the Hon'ble Division Bench, this judgment cannot be taken as a precedent, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Brajnandan Singh [(2005) 8 SCC 325], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down as under:
"5.In order to appreciate rival submissions Rule 26 which is the pivotal provision needs to be quoted. The same reads as under:
26.Forfeiture of service on resignation (1)Resignation from a service or post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the Appointing Authority, entails forfeiture of past service.
(2)A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies." Rule 26 as the heading itself shows relates to forfeiture of service on resignation. In clear terms it provides that resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the Appointing Authority, entails forfeiture of past service. The language is couched in mandatory terms. However, sub-rule(2) is in the nature of an exception. It provides that resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies. Admittedly this is not the case in the present appeal. Rule 5 on which great emphasis was laid down by the learned counsel for the respondent deals with regulation of claims to pension or family pension. Qualifying service is dealt with in Chapter III. The conditions subject to which service qualifies are provided in Rule 14. Chapter V deals with classes of pensions and conditions governing their grant. The effect of Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) cannot be lost sight of while deciding the question of entitlement of pension. The High Court was not justified in its conclusion that the rule was being torn out of context. After the past service is forfeited the same has to be excluded from the period of qualifying service. The language of Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) is very clear and unambiguous. It is trite law that all the provisions of a statute have to be read together and no particular provision should be treated as superfluous. That being the position after the acceptance of resignation, in terms of Rule 26 sub-rule (1) the past service stands forfeited. That being so, it has to be held that for the purpose of deciding question of entitlement to pension the respondent did not have the qualifying period of service. There is no substance in the plea of the learned counsel for the respondent that Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) has limited operation and does not wipe out entitlement to pension as quantified in Rule 49. Said Rule deals with amount of pension and not with entitlement.
6.It is well settled principle in law that the Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the Legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent."
7.It is not possible for this Court to add words to the statutory rules, to hold that a person who resigned from service on medical ground or for some other reason can be treated at par with those employees who resign to join other service. The Rule 23 of Pension Rules is clear that a resignation results in forfeiture of service which disentitles the government employee to pension.
8.For the reasons stated, there is no merit in this writ petition which is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
ssv To
1.The Director, The Directorate Forensic Science, Department, Chennai-04.
2.The Assistant Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai.