D.P.Singh - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) ZILA Panchayat Inter College, Chandauli is a duly recognized and aided intermediate college where the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in History on 16.9.1978, in substantive capacity. Initially, due to ill health she went on earned leave in October, 1992 and thereafter continued on medical leave but, thereafter, as she could not carry out her duties due to her medical condition, she resigned from service w.e.f. 1.3.1995 after completing more than 16 years of service. She claimed pension, gratuity and other amounts through various representations evoking no response, forcing her to file Writ Petition No. 25229 of 2001, which was finally disposed of vide order dated 13.7.2001, with a direction to the respondent to decide the claim of the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, provident fund was released to her on 5.3.2002 but without any interest. However, with regard to pension, gratuity and leave salary, the claim was rejected by the impugned order dated 14.3.2002 on the ground that she had not completed the qualifying service for pension and gratuity. Thus, the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that under Rule 17 read with Rule 21 of Uttar Pradesh Contributory Provident Fund Insurance Pension Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) she is entitled to grant of retiral benefit. There is no denial by the state respondents that these Rules are in vogue and apply to the petitioner. However, it is contended that since the petitioner had resigned and did not retire, thus she is not entitled to pension. It would be appropriate to consider Rule 17, which is as under : "An employee shall be eligible for pension on- (i) retirement on attaining the age of superannuation or on the expiry of extension granted beyond the superanuation age ; (ii) voluntary retirement after completing 25 years of qualifying services ; (iii) retirement before the age of superannuation under a medical certificate of permanent incapacity for further service ; and (iv) discharge due to abolition of post or closure of an institution due to withdrawal of recognition or other valid causes." It is apparent that Rule 17 (iii) contemplates retirement due to medical incapacity to work even before the age of superannuation. Further, Rule 21 prescribes the eligibility for receiving invalid pension. It would also be useful to take note of Rule 21, which is quoted below : "An employee shall be eligible for superannuation/retiring/ invalid pension only after completing 10 years of qualifying service at 1/20 of his average emoluments of past three years for every completed years of service subject to the maximum of 30/120 of such emoluments or the maximum fixed for the purpose, whichever is less." Thus, it is evident that if a person has completed 10 years of service and retired before the age of superannuation due to medical incapacity to work further, would be entitled to invalid pension as mentioned in Rule 21.
(3.) HOWEVER, learned standing counsel has contended that the Rule contemplates retirement and not resignation. The word 'retirement' has not been defined in the rules. In service law, 'retirement' commonly denotes cessation from employment on attaining the age of superannuation. The word has been defined in Webster's Dictionary as "to give up active participation in a business or other occupation." Rule 33 provides the only exclusion from the operation of the Rules in the following words : "No pension/family pension shall be granted if the employee was dismissed or removed from service for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency." A resignation is a genere of retirement and has been used in that sense in these Rules. Reading the three provisions together leads to the only conclusion that cessation of employment through resignation is not excluded from the operation of the Rules and the word as has been used in the Rules to connote cessation of active occupation, but does not mean retirement in the strict sense in which it is understood normally in service law. None of the respondents have denied that the petitioner resigned from service after completion of 10 years of continuous service on medical grounds. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is covered under Rule 17 (iii) read with Rule 21 which postulates invalid pension after completion of 10 years of service.;