Pension Forfeiture on Resignation: Supreme Court Rules Against Gurbaran Singh

The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, addressed the issue of pensionary benefits for government employees who resign from service. The case involved the State of Punjab and Ors. as appellants and Gurbaran Singh as the respondent. The court ruled in favor of the State of Punjab, holding that an employee who resigns from service forfeits their past service and is not entitled to pension benefits.

Background of the Case

The respondent, Gurbaran Singh, was appointed as a pharmacist by the Director of Health Services, Punjab, on September 5, 1975. During his tenure, he served at various locations before resigning from his post on June 27, 1986. His resignation was duly accepted by the Civil Surgeon at Civil Hospital, Muktsar. After resigning, he applied for pensionary benefits, but the state government only granted him gratuity and General Provident Fund (GPF) benefits. Dissatisfied with this decision, Singh filed a civil suit in 2009, claiming pension benefits.

Trial Court’s Decision

The Trial Court, after reviewing the case, ruled in favor of Gurbaran Singh. The court decreed that Singh was entitled to pension benefits and ordered the state to provide him with pension along with an interest of 9% per annum from the date of the decree. This ruling was subsequently upheld by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, when the state appealed against the Trial Court’s decision.

High Court’s Decision

The State of Punjab challenged the ruling further by filing a Second Appeal in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The state argued that Singh’s case was governed by Rule 7.5(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which explicitly states that an employee who resigns from service forfeits their past service and is not entitled to any pensionary benefits. However, the High Court rejected this argument and upheld the lower courts’ decisions, granting Singh his pensionary benefits.

Supreme Court’s Consideration

The case was brought before the Supreme Court, where the appellants (State of Punjab) argued that the High Court’s decision contradicted the established legal principles governing pension entitlement. The state’s counsel, Ms. Uttara Babbar, relied on a precedent set in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Braj Nandan Singh, where the Supreme Court held that resignation results in the forfeiture of past service and consequently the loss of pension entitlement.

The Supreme Court examined Rule 7.5(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which states:

“Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service.”

The court also referenced Rule 26 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, which has a similar provision and was upheld in Union of India vs. Braj Nandan Singh. The Supreme Court stated:

“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 the question of entitlement to pension, the respondent did not have the qualifying period of service.”

Arguments by the Petitioner (State of Punjab)

The state government’s primary arguments were:

Resignation from service results in forfeiture of past service, and thus, Singh was not entitled to pension.
Rule 7.5(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules was clear and unambiguous, and the High Court had wrongly interpreted it.
The judgment in Union of India vs. Braj Nandan Singh was directly applicable, and the High Court erred in not considering its implications.

Arguments by the Respondent (Gurbaran Singh)

The respondent’s counsel, Mr. Kumar Shashank, made the following points:

Singh had served for over a decade, and denying him pension would be unjust.
The state had failed to provide clarity on whether resignation would lead to loss of pensionary benefits at the time of his resignation.
Since lower courts had ruled in his favor, the Supreme Court should consider the matter from an equitable standpoint.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

After careful consideration, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Punjab. The key points of the judgment included:

The appeal was allowed, and the High Court’s judgment was set aside.
The civil suit filed by Gurbaran Singh in 2009 was dismissed.
The court directed that no further pensionary benefits should be given to Singh.
However, the court ruled that the amount of Rs.3,94,474.89, which was already paid to Singh in May 2018 following the High Court’s ruling, would not be recovered from him.

The ruling reinforced the principle that resignation from government service leads to the forfeiture of past service unless the resignation falls under exceptions provided in the relevant rules. The judgment serves as a precedent for similar cases concerning pension claims by resigned employees.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s verdict clarifies the legal position on pension entitlement for resigned employees. Government employees must be aware that resignation, unless expressly withdrawn in public interest, results in forfeiture of past service and loss of pension benefits. This judgment ensures uniformity in interpreting service rules and prevents misinterpretation by lower courts.

Petitioner Name: State of Punjab and Ors..
Respondent Name: Gurbaran Singh.
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu Malhotra.
Place Of Incident: Punjab.
Judgment Date: 01-03-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: State of Punjab and vs Gurbaran Singh Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 01-03-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by Indu Malhotra
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category