GHANSHYAM DASS RELHAN versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

GHANSHYAM DASS RELHAN versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

A government employee resigning to join a non-public service (bank) is not entitled to pension under Punjab Civil Services Rules unless the subsequent service is pensionable and counts toward qualifying service; Rules 4.19(b) and 5.32-A require continuity in public service and minimum qualifying service of 30 years.

Parties
Petitioner: Ghanshyam Dass Relhan; Respondents: State of Haryana & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court SLP Dismissal
Outcome
Special Leave Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Pension Entitlement, Retirement and Resignation, Qualifying Service, Punjab Civil Services Rules
Service Law Pension Entitlement Retirement and Resignation Qualifying Service Punjab Civil Services Rules

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ghanshyam Dass Relhan

Petitioner

State of Haryana & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court SLP Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a government employee resigning after 18 years of service to join bank service is entitled to pension under Punjab Civil Services Rules.
  2. 2 Interpretation of Rules 4.19(a), 4.19(b), 5.32-A and 6.16(2) regarding pension eligibility on resignation and retirement.

Ratio Decidendi

A government employee resigning to join a non-public service (bank) is not entitled to pension under Punjab Civil Services Rules unless the subsequent service is pensionable and counts toward qualifying service; Rules 4.19(b) and 5.32-A require continuity in public service and minimum qualifying service of 30 years.

Court Disposition

Special Leave Petition dismissed

Orders

  • No reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court
  • No order as to costs