- (1.) The short issue raised in instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is whether the appellant could claim pensionary benefits after rendering his resignation in view of the provisions of Rule 7.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. 1, Part-1 (for brevity 'the Rules'). According to the aforesaid Rule, if an employee tendered his resignation it shall entail forfeiture of past service. The only exception is when the resignation has been submitted to take up another appointment under the Government where service qualifies for pension after due and proper permission. The appellant was working as Section Officer in the department of Public Welfare and had joined as such in the year 1960. In the year 1974, he wanted to settle in Canada permanently. In that regard he filed an application to the Superintending Engineer PWD Public Health Circle, Jalandhar, who issued no objection certificate if the appellant wanted to go to Canada and seek permanent employment there. Accordingly, his application for earned leave for a period of 240 days was sanctioned. He is said to have gone to Canada on 13.09.1975, thereafter he sent an application for extension of leave which was declined on 23.07.1976. He was asked to rejoin his duties. The order was duly received by the appellant at his Canadian address. He sent his reply on 29.07.1976 expressing his inability to return India or to join his duties and requested that resignation may be accepted w.e.f. 01.01.1977. The learned Single Judge has also referred to facts in respect of some correspondence and the dues of the department which are not necessary for us to set out in this order. However the appellant once tendered his resignation, would not be entitled to claim any benefit of the past service as Rule 7.5. of the Rules would come into operation and it would result in forfeiture of the past services.
(2.) The learned Single Judge, however, ordered the payment of GPF for the services rendered from 1960 to 1975 subject to recovery which the respondents-department are lawfully entitled to make and/or adjust against the arrears of GPF. The payment is required to be made within specified time, failing which interest @ 9% per annum would be realizable. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at a considerable length. Mr. D.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that once the appellant has rendered about 15 years of service then the aforesaid period would qualify for pension. According to learned counsel, the appellant was entitled to go abroad without any hindrance.
(3.) We are afraid that the contention raised by the learned counsel fails to take into account the tenor of Rule 7.5 of the Rules. It is not disputed that once Rule 7.5 of the Rules apply then there is no escape from the conclusion that the service rendered by the appellant would stand forfeited and it would not qualify for pension. The learned Single Judge has also rightly placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. Braj Nandan Singh, 2005 8 SCC 325. If a person has resigned his job then such a step is taken at his own peril as it would result into forfeiture of his past service. We are further of the view that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge for holding inquiry into the manner in which the case of the appellant has been dealt with, is also not unwarranted. The view of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The appeal is wholly without merit and is thus liable to be dismissed.;