Rajiv Nayanam vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 8 February, 2021
26. Though, this Court has already upheld, herein
above in the preceding paragraphs, the impugned notification
issued by the respondent Road Construction Department,
Government of Bihar, dated 22.01.2016, this Court would
further derive support from the law laid down by the learned
Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Dr. Shahida
Hassan (supra), Kailash Pati Chaturvedi (supra) and Syed
Patna High Court CWJC No.5045 of 2017 dt.08-02-2021
54/55
Raza Ahmad Hussaini (supra) as also by the learned co-
ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Dr. Chandra
Deo Pandey (supra) and Kumar Satyendra Prasad Sinha
(supra) for the purposes of holding that the impugned
notification dated 22.01.2016, issued by the respondent Road
Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna qua the
petitioners herein do not suffer from any infirmity and are valid
in the eyes of Law, specially in view of the principles decided in
the aforesaid cases to the effect that under rule 101(a) of the
Bihar Pension Rules, resignation simplicitor or
resignation otherwise do not stand on different footings, as an
effect of the provisions contained in rule 101(a) of the Bihar
Pension Rules, the past services of an incumbent stands
forfeited on account of his resignation, hence it cannot be held
in his favour that he had completed the qualifying service for
entitlement to pension under Bihar Pension Rules and moreover,
there is no doubt that a person, who has tendered his resignation
voluntarily and unilaterally, which has also been accepted by the
authority, cannot claim pensionary benefits on account of
entailment of forfeiture of past service as an outcome of the
resignation as statutorily severance is affected in relationship of
the master and servant.